https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114246 Substituting fresh goods for duty-paid returned defective goods was treated as a procedural violation, but the records accepted by the Commissioner showed that duty had been paid twice on some clearances and short-paid on others. The demand was therefore restricted to the differential duty after adjustment of duty already paid, and the Revenue failed to show that this correlation was or that the full alleged clearance value was payable. Penalty and interest under the penal provisions were held inapplicable for the period prior to 27-9-96, as retrospective extension was not justified. The Commissioner's order was sustained and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 May 2012 11:10:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114246 Substituting fresh goods for duty-paid returned defective goods was treated as a procedural violation, but the records accepted by the Commissioner showed that duty had been paid twice on some clearances and short-paid on others. The demand was therefore restricted to the differential duty after adjustment of duty already paid, and the Revenue failed to show that this correlation was or that the full alleged clearance value was payable. Penalty and interest under the penal provisions were held inapplicable for the period prior to 27-9-96, as retrospective extension was not justified. The Commissioner's order was sustained and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114246