https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381432 The tribunal upheld the imposition of the demand for the differential duty on goods clearance, as the appellant had assembled inputs into finished goods, which were then returned for rectification/replacement, constituting a sale of finished goods. The appellant's argument that the goods returned for replacement were defective inputs, not sold finished goods, was dismissed for lack of proof of receiving rectified goods. However, the penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules was set aside due to the appellant's genuine belief and actions in reversing the availed duty credit, as there was no malafide intention to evade duty. en-us Mon, 10 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Jun 2019 06:33:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381432 The tribunal upheld the imposition of the demand for the differential duty on goods clearance, as the appellant had assembled inputs into finished goods, which were then returned for rectification/replacement, constituting a sale of finished goods. The appellant's argument that the goods returned for replacement were defective inputs, not sold finished goods, was dismissed for lack of proof of receiving rectified goods. However, the penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules was set aside due to the appellant's genuine belief and actions in reversing the availed duty credit, as there was no malafide intention to evade duty. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 10 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381432