https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266919 The Supreme Court interpreted its previous judgment regarding penalty imposition in the case, emphasizing the importance of specific pleas and the applicability of relevant provisions. The Court found that the CESTAT failed to address the issue of limitation raised by the departmental authorities, leading to the decision to impose the penalty on the respondent. Additionally, the Court set aside the CESTAT's order, stating that a rectification application cannot substitute the original decision but should focus on specific errors, ultimately reinstating the original order with clarification on rectification limited to the redemption fine. en-us Thu, 24 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Aug 2017 11:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266919 The Supreme Court interpreted its previous judgment regarding penalty imposition in the case, emphasizing the importance of specific pleas and the applicability of relevant provisions. The Court found that the CESTAT failed to address the issue of limitation raised by the departmental authorities, leading to the decision to impose the penalty on the respondent. Additionally, the Court set aside the CESTAT's order, stating that a rectification application cannot substitute the original decision but should focus on specific errors, ultimately reinstating the original order with clarification on rectification limited to the redemption fine. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 24 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266919