https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258849 The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's appeal, restoring the interest demand for non-compliance with duty-free exemption conditions under Notification No.204/92. It emphasized the respondent's breach of DEEC licensing conditions and notification requirements, citing legal precedents such as the High Court's ruling in Pratibha Syntext Ltd. case and the Supreme Court's decision in Rexnord Electronics case. The Tribunal clarified that interest under the bond is distinct from statutory interest under the Act, supporting the interest recovery stance. This decision aligns with established legal principles and previous court judgments. en-us Fri, 10 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Apr 2015 08:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258849 The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's appeal, restoring the interest demand for non-compliance with duty-free exemption conditions under Notification No.204/92. It emphasized the respondent's breach of DEEC licensing conditions and notification requirements, citing legal precedents such as the High Court's ruling in Pratibha Syntext Ltd. case and the Supreme Court's decision in Rexnord Electronics case. The Tribunal clarified that interest under the bond is distinct from statutory interest under the Act, supporting the interest recovery stance. This decision aligns with established legal principles and previous court judgments. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 10 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258849