https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115912 Removal of batteries to a testing unit under departmental permission was not shown to involve suppression or deliberate misdeclaration, because the arrangement was adopted for OEM acceptability and certification and random testing was treated as commercially sufficient. The demand and penalties were therefore not sustainable, particularly as duty had already been paid on clearance after testing and a further recovery would have resulted in double duty on the same goods. Even if the Rule 56B permission was erroneous, it remained binding on the Department until withdrawn in accordance with law. en-us Fri, 04 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Jun 2012 12:16:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115912 Removal of batteries to a testing unit under departmental permission was not shown to involve suppression or deliberate misdeclaration, because the arrangement was adopted for OEM acceptability and certification and random testing was treated as commercially sufficient. The demand and penalties were therefore not sustainable, particularly as duty had already been paid on clearance after testing and a further recovery would have resulted in double duty on the same goods. Even if the Rule 56B permission was erroneous, it remained binding on the Department until withdrawn in accordance with law. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 04 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115912