https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=961 Under the EPCG notification, differential duty for non-fulfilment of export obligation had to be recomputed by taking into account the bank guarantee amount and exports already made, because recovery could not exceed the duty foregone covered by the guarantee. The duty demand was therefore set aside for fresh quantification, with consequential interest to follow the recomputed liability. Once duty was recoverable, confiscation of the capital goods and redemption fine under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act were not justified and were set aside. Penalties under Section 112(a) were also not sustainable, as partial exports were shown and no wilful or contumacious conduct was established. en-us Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=961 Under the EPCG notification, differential duty for non-fulfilment of export obligation had to be recomputed by taking into account the bank guarantee amount and exports already made, because recovery could not exceed the duty foregone covered by the guarantee. The duty demand was therefore set aside for fresh quantification, with consequential interest to follow the recomputed liability. Once duty was recoverable, confiscation of the capital goods and redemption fine under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act were not justified and were set aside. Penalties under Section 112(a) were also not sustainable, as partial exports were shown and no wilful or contumacious conduct was established. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=961