https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345282 The Tribunal upheld the demand for differential duty on capital goods, as no exemption Notification covered the situation. Depreciation was allowed based on rates at debonding, with fire control systems and water storage tanks considered capital goods. Imported spare parts were included in the EPCG license. The Tribunal rejected arguments of revenue neutrality and upheld the original authority's decision on penalty imposition. The impugned order was upheld, and appeals by both parties were rejected. en-us Tue, 06 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Dec 2017 16:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345282 The Tribunal upheld the demand for differential duty on capital goods, as no exemption Notification covered the situation. Depreciation was allowed based on rates at debonding, with fire control systems and water storage tanks considered capital goods. Imported spare parts were included in the EPCG license. The Tribunal rejected arguments of revenue neutrality and upheld the original authority's decision on penalty imposition. The impugned order was upheld, and appeals by both parties were rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 06 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345282