https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414556 The High Court remanded the case back to CESTAT for fresh consideration, emphasizing the significance of the notification dated 27-3-2008 and the intention to evade duty. The Tribunal upheld the duty demand confirmation and rejected the appeal based on the lack of entitlement to penalty relief under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of complete refund eligibility, intention to evade duty, and proper valuation practices in determining penalty imposition in excise matters. en-us Tue, 09 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Nov 2021 08:43:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414556 The High Court remanded the case back to CESTAT for fresh consideration, emphasizing the significance of the notification dated 27-3-2008 and the intention to evade duty. The Tribunal upheld the duty demand confirmation and rejected the appeal based on the lack of entitlement to penalty relief under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of complete refund eligibility, intention to evade duty, and proper valuation practices in determining penalty imposition in excise matters. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 09 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414556