https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764466 CESTAT Bangalore held that appellant failed to pay excise duty at prevailing rates, making demand sustainable. In Appeal No. E/27329/2013, despite appellant filing ER-1 returns regularly, department's delayed notice exceeded statutory limitation period, barring the demand. In Appeal No. E/27330/2013, appellant remained liable for duty payment. Tribunal applied cum duty benefit principle, determining assessable value under Section 4 of the Act requires deduction of aggregate effective duty from wholesale price when it includes excise duties. Total duty demand must be abated from cum-duty price received as consideration. Excess duty with interest payable; no penalty imposed. Appeal allowed. en-us Tue, 07 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Jan 2025 15:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764466 CESTAT Bangalore held that appellant failed to pay excise duty at prevailing rates, making demand sustainable. In Appeal No. E/27329/2013, despite appellant filing ER-1 returns regularly, department's delayed notice exceeded statutory limitation period, barring the demand. In Appeal No. E/27330/2013, appellant remained liable for duty payment. Tribunal applied cum duty benefit principle, determining assessable value under Section 4 of the Act requires deduction of aggregate effective duty from wholesale price when it includes excise duties. Total duty demand must be abated from cum-duty price received as consideration. Excess duty with interest payable; no penalty imposed. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 07 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764466