https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125498 The applicants sought a stay of the impugned order demanding customs duty and penalty, which was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Pune. The argument for exemption under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus. was based on a previous Tribunal order and evolving interpretations. The Apex Court clarified the term "in connection with the manufacture," emphasizing specific business contexts. Changes in the meaning of "capital goods" lacked specific examples. While a partial waiver was granted for the penalty, the duty demand waiver was rejected. The Tribunal's previous order was deemed non-binding, and the applicants were directed to deposit the entire duty amount within a specified timeframe. en-us Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Oct 2012 17:01:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125498 The applicants sought a stay of the impugned order demanding customs duty and penalty, which was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Pune. The argument for exemption under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus. was based on a previous Tribunal order and evolving interpretations. The Apex Court clarified the term "in connection with the manufacture," emphasizing specific business contexts. Changes in the meaning of "capital goods" lacked specific examples. While a partial waiver was granted for the penalty, the duty demand waiver was rejected. The Tribunal's previous order was deemed non-binding, and the applicants were directed to deposit the entire duty amount within a specified timeframe. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125498