https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379719 The appellant was found liable for a differential duty of &8377; 16,960 with interest, as they failed to discharge Central Excise duty but successfully rebutted allegations of recovering additional charges improperly. The Tribunal determined that the appellant did not sell the brand names of distributors and set aside the demand based on this claim. The judgment underscores the necessity of accurate documentation in distinguishing between additional charges and excise duty liability, as well as the importance of scrutinizing agreements and supporting documents to validate exemptions and the use of others' brand names in business dealings. en-us Thu, 07 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 May 2019 07:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379719 The appellant was found liable for a differential duty of &8377; 16,960 with interest, as they failed to discharge Central Excise duty but successfully rebutted allegations of recovering additional charges improperly. The Tribunal determined that the appellant did not sell the brand names of distributors and set aside the demand based on this claim. The judgment underscores the necessity of accurate documentation in distinguishing between additional charges and excise duty liability, as well as the importance of scrutinizing agreements and supporting documents to validate exemptions and the use of others' brand names in business dealings. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 07 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379719