https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78136 CESTAT Mumbai addressed a case involving a differential Central Excise duty demand u/s 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant discharged the duty upon obtaining CAS-4 certificates showing actual values of intermediate goods. The tribunal found the duty demand unsustainable as the appellant had paid duty based on available records and later adjusted it upon determining actual costs. The department's proposed addition to base cost was deemed insufficient to invoke Section 11A(4). The tribunal also ruled that the extended limitation period couldn't be applied for clearances to other units. Penalties u/s 11AC (1)(a) and u/r 25(1)(a) were deemed unjustified. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Wed, 05 Jun 2024 08:14:01 +0530 Wed, 05 Jun 2024 08:14:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78136 CESTAT Mumbai addressed a case involving a differential Central Excise duty demand u/s 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant discharged the duty upon obtaining CAS-4 certificates showing actual values of intermediate goods. The tribunal found the duty demand unsustainable as the appellant had paid duty based on available records and later adjusted it upon determining actual costs. The department's proposed addition to base cost was deemed insufficient to invoke Section 11A(4). The tribunal also ruled that the extended limitation period couldn't be applied for clearances to other units. Penalties u/s 11AC (1)(a) and u/r 25(1)(a) were deemed unjustified. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Highlights Central Excise Wed, 05 Jun 2024 08:14:01 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78136