https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80959 Penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules was held unsustainable where duty had been paid subsequently and the failure to pay at removal was explained by an inadvertent omission linked to a bona fide dispute on classification and small-scale exemption. The record showed no conscious defiance of law; the controversy over the goods' classification and the later reliance on judicial decisions supported the view that the breach was neither deliberate nor contumacious. In these circumstances, a mere technical or venial breach, or one arising from a bona fide belief, did not justify penal action, and the penalty was set aside. en-us Fri, 23 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:28:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80959 Penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules was held unsustainable where duty had been paid subsequently and the failure to pay at removal was explained by an inadvertent omission linked to a bona fide dispute on classification and small-scale exemption. The record showed no conscious defiance of law; the controversy over the goods' classification and the later reliance on judicial decisions supported the view that the breach was neither deliberate nor contumacious. In these circumstances, a mere technical or venial breach, or one arising from a bona fide belief, did not justify penal action, and the penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 23 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80959