https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119758 The High Court modified the Tribunal's initial directive, requiring the applicant to deposit 50% of the duty and provide a bank guarantee for the remaining amount within two months. Despite the applicant's reliance on a favorable decision from the CESTAT Mumbai Bench, the Tribunal found their active involvement in obtaining forged licenses and payments to a fictitious entity. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the cited precedent, emphasizing deliberate misconduct over negligence. Consequently, the Tribunal denied the waiver of the balance duty amount, granting the applicant eight weeks to furnish the necessary bank guarantees for compliance with the High Court's order. en-us Mon, 12 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:56:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119758 The High Court modified the Tribunal's initial directive, requiring the applicant to deposit 50% of the duty and provide a bank guarantee for the remaining amount within two months. Despite the applicant's reliance on a favorable decision from the CESTAT Mumbai Bench, the Tribunal found their active involvement in obtaining forged licenses and payments to a fictitious entity. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the cited precedent, emphasizing deliberate misconduct over negligence. Consequently, the Tribunal denied the waiver of the balance duty amount, granting the applicant eight weeks to furnish the necessary bank guarantees for compliance with the High Court's order. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 12 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119758