https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357222 The appeal involved the imposition of a penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, against M/s DCM Engineering Pvt. Ltd. The appellant was found liable for duty on amortized costs but not for the penalty under Rule 26. The penalty was set aside based on a prior Final Order related to co-noticee/buyers, emphasizing the distinction between one-time payments and amortized costs in assessable values. This case underscores the importance of adhering to specific notifications, clarifying penalty impositions, and respecting previous tribunal decisions for fair and consistent legal outcomes in excise duty matters. en-us Tue, 20 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Mar 2018 08:44:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357222 The appeal involved the imposition of a penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, against M/s DCM Engineering Pvt. Ltd. The appellant was found liable for duty on amortized costs but not for the penalty under Rule 26. The penalty was set aside based on a prior Final Order related to co-noticee/buyers, emphasizing the distinction between one-time payments and amortized costs in assessable values. This case underscores the importance of adhering to specific notifications, clarifying penalty impositions, and respecting previous tribunal decisions for fair and consistent legal outcomes in excise duty matters. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 20 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357222