https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375126 The Tribunal upheld the demand for recovery of excise duty differentials by a sugar factory under an incentive scheme, based on the introduction of Sec.11D in 1991, despite delays in initiating denovo proceedings. The decision emphasized the statutory provisions and rejected the argument that delays in proceedings invalidate the demand under Sec.11D, citing conflicting judgments from different High Courts on the issue. The appeal challenging the demand was rejected, affirming the original authority's decision for remittance of excise duty differentials to the government. en-us Tue, 29 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Mar 2020 14:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375126 The Tribunal upheld the demand for recovery of excise duty differentials by a sugar factory under an incentive scheme, based on the introduction of Sec.11D in 1991, despite delays in initiating denovo proceedings. The decision emphasized the statutory provisions and rejected the argument that delays in proceedings invalidate the demand under Sec.11D, citing conflicting judgments from different High Courts on the issue. The appeal challenging the demand was rejected, affirming the original authority's decision for remittance of excise duty differentials to the government. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 29 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375126