https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363968 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing compliance with Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. It clarified that duty payment should align with the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) declared on goods to avoid disputes. The appellant's adherence to paying duty based on the declared MRP after abatement was upheld, dismissing the Revenue's claim for additional duty. The Tribunal also found the demand notice time-barred due to lack of evidence of mala fide intent, ultimately setting aside the order and providing relief to the appellant on both merit and limitation grounds. en-us Mon, 16 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Jul 2018 09:36:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363968 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing compliance with Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. It clarified that duty payment should align with the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) declared on goods to avoid disputes. The appellant's adherence to paying duty based on the declared MRP after abatement was upheld, dismissing the Revenue's claim for additional duty. The Tribunal also found the demand notice time-barred due to lack of evidence of mala fide intent, ultimately setting aside the order and providing relief to the appellant on both merit and limitation grounds. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 16 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363968