https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348792 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant against the penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the demand of interest under Section 11AB. The appellant's belief that no additional duty was payable on an advance intermediary license was considered bona fide, and the duty was paid before the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter. The Tribunal found no fraudulent intent to evade duty and referenced previous decisions supporting the appellant's position. Additionally, the demand for interest before a specific date was deemed unsustainable based on precedents from the Gujarat and Karnataka High Courts. en-us Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Sep 2017 11:56:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348792 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant against the penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the demand of interest under Section 11AB. The appellant's belief that no additional duty was payable on an advance intermediary license was considered bona fide, and the duty was paid before the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter. The Tribunal found no fraudulent intent to evade duty and referenced previous decisions supporting the appellant's position. Additionally, the demand for interest before a specific date was deemed unsustainable based on precedents from the Gujarat and Karnataka High Courts. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348792