https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72175 Removal of excisable goods beyond the exemption limit without payment of duty attracted penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(a) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and mens rea was not required for that contravention. The excess clearance was admitted, prior warning supported the conclusion that the removal was unauthorised, and the penalty liability was upheld. The show-cause notice was not vague because it clearly alleged excess removal and non-payment of duty, so the absence of an express sub-clause reference caused no prejudice. However, the penalty was reduced as excessive in view of the admitted excess removal and deposit of duty. en-us Thu, 09 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 May 2011 18:41:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72175 Removal of excisable goods beyond the exemption limit without payment of duty attracted penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(a) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and mens rea was not required for that contravention. The excess clearance was admitted, prior warning supported the conclusion that the removal was unauthorised, and the penalty liability was upheld. The show-cause notice was not vague because it clearly alleged excess removal and non-payment of duty, so the absence of an express sub-clause reference caused no prejudice. However, the penalty was reduced as excessive in view of the admitted excess removal and deposit of duty. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 09 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72175