https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408722 Under the compounded levy regime for chewing and unmanufactured tobacco packing machines, differential duty could not be demanded on assumptions or presumptions where the Department failed to prove that the assessee's declaration was false or untrue. A duty determination for April 2010 had already attained finality and was not challenged, so it could not be displaced by treating a later installed machine as a double-track machine without concrete proof of misdeclaration. On that basis, the connected penalty also failed, and the demand was held unsustainable in favour of the assessee. en-us Thu, 17 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Apr 2022 11:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408722 Under the compounded levy regime for chewing and unmanufactured tobacco packing machines, differential duty could not be demanded on assumptions or presumptions where the Department failed to prove that the assessee's declaration was false or untrue. A duty determination for April 2010 had already attained finality and was not challenged, so it could not be displaced by treating a later installed machine as a double-track machine without concrete proof of misdeclaration. On that basis, the connected penalty also failed, and the demand was held unsustainable in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 17 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408722