https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31634 The Tribunal upheld the duty demand on capital goods and spares, confirmed the confiscation of goods under Section 111(o), and maintained the penalties imposed. However, it set aside the duty demand on raw materials and remitted the case to the Commissioner for verification of whether any raw material was lying unutilized on the date of closure of the unit. The quantum of fine and penalty was also to be re-determined based on fresh findings on the duty liability of raw materials. en-us Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31634 The Tribunal upheld the duty demand on capital goods and spares, confirmed the confiscation of goods under Section 111(o), and maintained the penalties imposed. However, it set aside the duty demand on raw materials and remitted the case to the Commissioner for verification of whether any raw material was lying unutilized on the date of closure of the unit. The quantum of fine and penalty was also to be re-determined based on fresh findings on the duty liability of raw materials. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31634