https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353310 Goods not shown to have been presented as complete machinery in unassembled or disassembled condition were treated as parts, so exemption under Notification No. 56/95-C.E. was unavailable and the duty demand based on that classification was sustained. The omission to mention the precise sub-clause in the notice and order did not invalidate the penalty under Section 173Q because the contravention was clearly discernible from the record, the appellant knew the duty position, and the wrong exemption claim was not shown to be bona fide. The penalty was upheld. en-us Fri, 29 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Feb 2018 12:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353310 Goods not shown to have been presented as complete machinery in unassembled or disassembled condition were treated as parts, so exemption under Notification No. 56/95-C.E. was unavailable and the duty demand based on that classification was sustained. The omission to mention the precise sub-clause in the notice and order did not invalidate the penalty under Section 173Q because the contravention was clearly discernible from the record, the appellant knew the duty position, and the wrong exemption claim was not shown to be bona fide. The penalty was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353310