https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259573 Duty demand was upheld because the substantive levy was already covered by a prior Supreme Court decision in favour of the Revenue, and the Tribunal's contrary view could not stand on merits. Penalty was nevertheless set aside because the Court considered the peculiar facts and the existence of conflicting judicial opinion before the controversy was settled, making penal consequences unjustified. The appeals were thus allowed in part: the duty component was sustained, but the penalty component was removed. en-us Tue, 05 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Aug 2017 11:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259573 Duty demand was upheld because the substantive levy was already covered by a prior Supreme Court decision in favour of the Revenue, and the Tribunal's contrary view could not stand on merits. Penalty was nevertheless set aside because the Court considered the peculiar facts and the existence of conflicting judicial opinion before the controversy was settled, making penal consequences unjustified. The appeals were thus allowed in part: the duty component was sustained, but the penalty component was removed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 05 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259573