https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779757 CESTAT held that the appellant wrongly claimed benefit under Notification No.36/1996-Cus. Sl. No.10 but, given the amendment effective April 2015 and the bill of entry filed soon after, the error was a bona fide mistake. Differential duty with interest was paid and a minor interest miscalculation was rectified. There was no misstatement or suppression; therefore penalty under s.114A was set aside. Penalty under s.112(b) against the company's Vice President was also unwarranted. The impugned order was modified and the appeals partly allowed; matter disposed. en-us Thu, 11 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Oct 2025 08:53:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779757 CESTAT held that the appellant wrongly claimed benefit under Notification No.36/1996-Cus. Sl. No.10 but, given the amendment effective April 2015 and the bill of entry filed soon after, the error was a bona fide mistake. Differential duty with interest was paid and a minor interest miscalculation was rectified. There was no misstatement or suppression; therefore penalty under s.114A was set aside. Penalty under s.112(b) against the company's Vice President was also unwarranted. The impugned order was modified and the appeals partly allowed; matter disposed. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 11 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779757