https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333100 The High Court held that there was no suppression or misdeclaration of facts with intent to evade duty in the case. The adverse remark in the order was deleted as the petitioner rectified the error by accepting calculations and computations through the settlement process. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing the writ petition to the extent of removing the adverse remark, without granting any refund of duty, interest, or penalty already paid. en-us Mon, 26 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333100 The High Court held that there was no suppression or misdeclaration of facts with intent to evade duty in the case. The adverse remark in the order was deleted as the petitioner rectified the error by accepting calculations and computations through the settlement process. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing the writ petition to the extent of removing the adverse remark, without granting any refund of duty, interest, or penalty already paid. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 26 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333100