https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49884 The Tribunal upheld the differential duty demand, ruling that the appellants were liable for the full tariff rate duty as per the terms of Notification No. 222/87, rejecting the argument of revenue neutrality. The penalty under Section 112 was dropped due to lack of mala fide intention, and the demand for interest under Section 28AB was set aside as it was enacted post-imports. Despite acknowledging undue delay in adjudication proceedings, the Tribunal found no irreparable damage caused to the appellants, affirming the duty demand and dismissing their contentions. en-us Wed, 03 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:49:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49884 The Tribunal upheld the differential duty demand, ruling that the appellants were liable for the full tariff rate duty as per the terms of Notification No. 222/87, rejecting the argument of revenue neutrality. The penalty under Section 112 was dropped due to lack of mala fide intention, and the demand for interest under Section 28AB was set aside as it was enacted post-imports. Despite acknowledging undue delay in adjudication proceedings, the Tribunal found no irreparable damage caused to the appellants, affirming the duty demand and dismissing their contentions. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 03 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49884