CESTAT held that the appellant-company erroneously availed...

CESTAT held that the appellant-company erroneously availed Notification No.36/1996 benefit under Sl.10 shortly after its amendment, but the error was bona fide; differential duty and interest were paid and a minor interest shortfall was admitted. There was no misstatement, mis-declaration or suppression in the Bill of Entry. Consequently, imposition of penalty under s.114A, and penalty under s.112(b) on the vice-president, were unwarranted and set aside. The impugned order was modified, the company's appeal was partly allowed to the extent of cancelling penalties, the vice-president's appeal was allowed, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly.