https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387732 The Tribunal confirmed duty liability on OTS cans for M/s PBPL, imposing a reduced duty of &8377;7,15,732. Appeal E/640/2011 was rejected due to lack of evidence supporting claims of exempted usage. Regarding M/s JISL's liability, the Tribunal allowed appeal E/53/2011, finding premature invocation of Section 11 for recovery as no confirmed demands existed against them. Emphasizing the need for confirmed demands before invoking recovery measures, the Tribunal ruled in favor of M/s JISL, highlighting the legal unsoundness of premature Section 11 invocation. The judgment underscored the importance of confirmed demands in applying recovery mechanisms under the Central Excise Act, 1944. en-us Fri, 25 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Oct 2019 18:35:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387732 The Tribunal confirmed duty liability on OTS cans for M/s PBPL, imposing a reduced duty of &8377;7,15,732. Appeal E/640/2011 was rejected due to lack of evidence supporting claims of exempted usage. Regarding M/s JISL's liability, the Tribunal allowed appeal E/53/2011, finding premature invocation of Section 11 for recovery as no confirmed demands existed against them. Emphasizing the need for confirmed demands before invoking recovery measures, the Tribunal ruled in favor of M/s JISL, highlighting the legal unsoundness of premature Section 11 invocation. The judgment underscored the importance of confirmed demands in applying recovery mechanisms under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 25 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387732