https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356623 An earlier appellate direction for re-quantification had attained finality, so the de novo adjudication made in compliance with that direction was not interfered with. The challenge based on alleged denial of natural justice failed because no prior request for opportunity had been made and the relevant material was already on record. The claims for benefit under Notification No. 28/2000-CE(NT) and deduction under Section 4(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were rejected as belated and unsupported by contemporaneous evidence. The alleged stay and Board circular were found not to affect the proceedings, and the re-determined demand with equal penalty was upheld. en-us Fri, 17 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Mar 2018 06:49:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356623 An earlier appellate direction for re-quantification had attained finality, so the de novo adjudication made in compliance with that direction was not interfered with. The challenge based on alleged denial of natural justice failed because no prior request for opportunity had been made and the relevant material was already on record. The claims for benefit under Notification No. 28/2000-CE(NT) and deduction under Section 4(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were rejected as belated and unsupported by contemporaneous evidence. The alleged stay and Board circular were found not to affect the proceedings, and the re-determined demand with equal penalty was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356623