https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761217 Departmental challenge to the quantification for the period before March 2011 failed because the adjudicating authority had transparently estimated the duty-liable value using the ratio of dutiable items from 2012-13, in the absence of item-wise clearance data. The Tribunal found no material from the Department to show that this method was arbitrary or incorrect, and the estimated duty for the relevant period remained below the monetary threshold for departmental appeals. The record also showed that the bought-out goods allegation was unsubstantiated and that the pre-March 2011 clearances continued to fall within the SSI exemption. The appeal was therefore held not maintainable for low tax effect, with no infirmity found in the impugned order. en-us Wed, 06 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Nov 2024 08:47:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761217 Departmental challenge to the quantification for the period before March 2011 failed because the adjudicating authority had transparently estimated the duty-liable value using the ratio of dutiable items from 2012-13, in the absence of item-wise clearance data. The Tribunal found no material from the Department to show that this method was arbitrary or incorrect, and the estimated duty for the relevant period remained below the monetary threshold for departmental appeals. The record also showed that the bought-out goods allegation was unsubstantiated and that the pre-March 2011 clearances continued to fall within the SSI exemption. The appeal was therefore held not maintainable for low tax effect, with no infirmity found in the impugned order. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 06 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761217