https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392161 The appeal was rejected, and the Commissioner (Appeals) order confirming the demand of Central Excise duty and interest was upheld. The case revolved around the denial of SSI exemption for Steel Items due to brand name usage. The appellant's argument against paying interest along with duty was dismissed, emphasizing statutory requirements under Section 11A(14). The Commissioner (Appeals) found no separate order necessary for interest payment, supported by Section 11AB analysis. Despite the appellant's contentions, the ruling favored the Revenue, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. en-us Fri, 31 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Feb 2020 11:35:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392161 The appeal was rejected, and the Commissioner (Appeals) order confirming the demand of Central Excise duty and interest was upheld. The case revolved around the denial of SSI exemption for Steel Items due to brand name usage. The appellant's argument against paying interest along with duty was dismissed, emphasizing statutory requirements under Section 11A(14). The Commissioner (Appeals) found no separate order necessary for interest payment, supported by Section 11AB analysis. Despite the appellant's contentions, the ruling favored the Revenue, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 31 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392161