https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110924 Removals of goods from a 100% Export Oriented Unit were treated as excise duty in substance, even though customs law was used for quantification. Applying the binding Larger Bench view in Vikram Ispat, the levy was held not to be customs duty under the Customs Act, 1962. As the customs-based demand could not be sustained, the consequential interest and penalties imposed under the same Act also failed. The demand and penalties were therefore set aside. en-us Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Apr 2012 12:17:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110924 Removals of goods from a 100% Export Oriented Unit were treated as excise duty in substance, even though customs law was used for quantification. Applying the binding Larger Bench view in Vikram Ispat, the levy was held not to be customs duty under the Customs Act, 1962. As the customs-based demand could not be sustained, the consequential interest and penalties imposed under the same Act also failed. The demand and penalties were therefore set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110924