https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446072 The CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal in part in this central excise valuation case. The appellant had paid differential duty based on cost accountant certificates for captive consumption goods. The tribunal held that demands for 2003-04 and 2005-06 were appropriated against amounts already paid by appellant. For 2004-05, differential duty demand was modified to Rs 66,13,705 with Rs 27,98,055 already paid being appropriated. The tribunal found the limitation period was computed correctly as the appellant followed prescribed procedures for provisional assessment. All penalties under Section 11AC were set aside as appellant followed accepted procedures, but interest demands under Section 11AB were upheld. en-us Mon, 09 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Nov 2023 06:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446072 The CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal in part in this central excise valuation case. The appellant had paid differential duty based on cost accountant certificates for captive consumption goods. The tribunal held that demands for 2003-04 and 2005-06 were appropriated against amounts already paid by appellant. For 2004-05, differential duty demand was modified to Rs 66,13,705 with Rs 27,98,055 already paid being appropriated. The tribunal found the limitation period was computed correctly as the appellant followed prescribed procedures for provisional assessment. All penalties under Section 11AC were set aside as appellant followed accepted procedures, but interest demands under Section 11AB were upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 09 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446072