https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304466 The appeal was allowed by the Member (Judicial) based on the interpretation of various case laws and the binding nature of the Board Circular on Revenue Officers. The appellant's challenge against the duty demand for remission of duty on leaked and burst bottles was upheld, emphasizing the importance of following established legal precedents and adhering to the prescribed procedures under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The decision highlighted the necessity for Revenue Officers to consider the Circular's applicability in cases involving damaged goods and remission of duty, ultimately setting aside the confirmed duty demand. en-us Wed, 08 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Sep 2022 08:01:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304466 The appeal was allowed by the Member (Judicial) based on the interpretation of various case laws and the binding nature of the Board Circular on Revenue Officers. The appellant's challenge against the duty demand for remission of duty on leaked and burst bottles was upheld, emphasizing the importance of following established legal precedents and adhering to the prescribed procedures under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The decision highlighted the necessity for Revenue Officers to consider the Circular's applicability in cases involving damaged goods and remission of duty, ultimately setting aside the confirmed duty demand. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 08 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304466