https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359042 The appellant, a job worker for M/s ISGEC, was not liable for differential duty and interest as duty had already been paid by M/s ISGEC on the goods. The Tribunal ruled that no additional duty was payable by the appellants under Rule 10A (ii) of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Regarding penalty imposition, since M/s ISGEC had paid duty on the transaction value of the goods and there was no intention to underpay duty, the Tribunal held that no penalty was imposable on the appellants. The appeal was allowed based on a previous ruling, providing relief to the appellants. en-us Wed, 14 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Apr 2018 06:56:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359042 The appellant, a job worker for M/s ISGEC, was not liable for differential duty and interest as duty had already been paid by M/s ISGEC on the goods. The Tribunal ruled that no additional duty was payable by the appellants under Rule 10A (ii) of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Regarding penalty imposition, since M/s ISGEC had paid duty on the transaction value of the goods and there was no intention to underpay duty, the Tribunal held that no penalty was imposable on the appellants. The appeal was allowed based on a previous ruling, providing relief to the appellants. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 14 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359042