https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780002 CESTAT held that omission of the second proviso to the Notification during 21.09.2015-05.10.2015 removed the obligation relied on by authorities, so recovery of duty with interest under section 28AA and enforcement of the bond were without authority. Statements under section 108 were held not relevant, and the 2009 Circular did not apply post-omission. Consequently, penalties under sections 112 and 114AA could not be sustained against the appellant or its partner/manager. The appeal was allowed and demands and penalties set aside. en-us Tue, 05 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Oct 2025 08:31:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780002 CESTAT held that omission of the second proviso to the Notification during 21.09.2015-05.10.2015 removed the obligation relied on by authorities, so recovery of duty with interest under section 28AA and enforcement of the bond were without authority. Statements under section 108 were held not relevant, and the 2009 Circular did not apply post-omission. Consequently, penalties under sections 112 and 114AA could not be sustained against the appellant or its partner/manager. The appeal was allowed and demands and penalties set aside. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 05 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780002