https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49898 A penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act could not stand where the underlying duty demand was dropped, and the notice did not otherwise support the levy. A duty demand on alleged bonded warehouse clearances was also set aside because the record showed the same coils had already been cleared on payment of duty, making the demand duplicative. On reconsideration of the surrounding circumstances, the Tribunal retained liability but reduced the penalties on the company and its manager. en-us Sun, 13 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:44:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49898 A penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act could not stand where the underlying duty demand was dropped, and the notice did not otherwise support the levy. A duty demand on alleged bonded warehouse clearances was also set aside because the record showed the same coils had already been cleared on payment of duty, making the demand duplicative. On reconsideration of the surrounding circumstances, the Tribunal retained liability but reduced the penalties on the company and its manager. Case-Laws Central Excise Sun, 13 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49898