https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342771 Retrospective amendment requiring reversal or payment of 8% on exempted goods could sustain the underlying fiscal liability, but not interest for the prior period because interest was treated as a consequence of default and could not be imposed retrospectively. The text also states that penalty under the central excise scheme was unavailable absent proof of fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, collusion, or intent to evade duty, and that the amount payable for exempted goods was not treated as duty for penalty purposes under the cited provisions. On the stated facts, the substantive demand remained, while interest and penalty were set aside. en-us Thu, 30 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 May 2017 07:12:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342771 Retrospective amendment requiring reversal or payment of 8% on exempted goods could sustain the underlying fiscal liability, but not interest for the prior period because interest was treated as a consequence of default and could not be imposed retrospectively. The text also states that penalty under the central excise scheme was unavailable absent proof of fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, collusion, or intent to evade duty, and that the amount payable for exempted goods was not treated as duty for penalty purposes under the cited provisions. On the stated facts, the substantive demand remained, while interest and penalty were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 30 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342771