https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270300 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the duty and interest demand due to the absence of permission for job work involving sandalwood oil extraction. The penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules was reduced to Rs. 2,000. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural lapses did not warrant duty imposition, highlighting the distinction between substantive and procedural compliance. en-us Wed, 15 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Feb 2016 16:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270300 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the duty and interest demand due to the absence of permission for job work involving sandalwood oil extraction. The penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules was reduced to Rs. 2,000. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural lapses did not warrant duty imposition, highlighting the distinction between substantive and procedural compliance. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 15 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270300