https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784682 The dominant issue was whether concessional duty under Not. No. 4/2006-CE could be denied on allegations of RSP misdeclaration, suppression, and consequent evasion for imported cement used in execution of a Government contract. Applying a co-ordinate bench decision on identical facts, the Tribunal held the importer satisfied the notification conditions and that the allegations did not sustain either on merits or limitation; consequently, the differential duty demand with interest and penalty under s. 114A was held untenable and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. en-us Thu, 08 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Jan 2026 08:25:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784682 The dominant issue was whether concessional duty under Not. No. 4/2006-CE could be denied on allegations of RSP misdeclaration, suppression, and consequent evasion for imported cement used in execution of a Government contract. Applying a co-ordinate bench decision on identical facts, the Tribunal held the importer satisfied the notification conditions and that the allegations did not sustain either on merits or limitation; consequently, the differential duty demand with interest and penalty under s. 114A was held untenable and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 08 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784682