https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89409 Penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(d) was considered sustainable where goods were removed without payment of duty over a prolonged period, even though the assessee claimed reliance on an exemption notification and there was no finding of mala fides. The absence of deliberate intention did not bar penalty because duty was payable throughout the relevant period and the exemption defence was rejected. A cited Tribunal decision was distinguished on the basis that duty in that case arose only later, unlike the present facts. The penalty was regarded as reasonable in view of the duty involved. en-us Mon, 26 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:33:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89409 Penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(d) was considered sustainable where goods were removed without payment of duty over a prolonged period, even though the assessee claimed reliance on an exemption notification and there was no finding of mala fides. The absence of deliberate intention did not bar penalty because duty was payable throughout the relevant period and the exemption defence was rejected. A cited Tribunal decision was distinguished on the basis that duty in that case arose only later, unlike the present facts. The penalty was regarded as reasonable in view of the duty involved. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 26 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89409