https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391736 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to include the amortization cost of moulds at 0.66% in the value of finished plastic goods, rejecting the Revenue's argument for 1.75%. The absence of evidence challenging the lower percentage supported the Commissioner's ruling. As the duty amount did not exceed policy limits and there was no suppression of facts, the recovery of interest under Section 11AB was rightly set aside. The judgment stressed the significance of accurate evidence and calculations in determining duty amounts and interest under the Central Excise Act, 1944. en-us Fri, 03 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Feb 2020 08:11:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391736 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to include the amortization cost of moulds at 0.66% in the value of finished plastic goods, rejecting the Revenue's argument for 1.75%. The absence of evidence challenging the lower percentage supported the Commissioner's ruling. As the duty amount did not exceed policy limits and there was no suppression of facts, the recovery of interest under Section 11AB was rightly set aside. The judgment stressed the significance of accurate evidence and calculations in determining duty amounts and interest under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 03 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391736