https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95940 Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was held inapplicable where excisable goods were cleared under invoice but the PLA was not actually debited, because the omission was treated as a clerical lapse and not as fraud, suppression, wilful misstatement, or other culpable conduct. The mandatory ingredients for that penalty were therefore absent. Confiscation-related penalty under Rule 173Q was still attracted, but the redemption fine was reduced because the goods had been removed to a Central Government undertaking, were properly accounted for, and a sufficient PLA balance existed. The decision retained the minor confiscation consequence while deleting the mandatory penalty and reducing the fine. en-us Mon, 12 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:24:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95940 Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was held inapplicable where excisable goods were cleared under invoice but the PLA was not actually debited, because the omission was treated as a clerical lapse and not as fraud, suppression, wilful misstatement, or other culpable conduct. The mandatory ingredients for that penalty were therefore absent. Confiscation-related penalty under Rule 173Q was still attracted, but the redemption fine was reduced because the goods had been removed to a Central Government undertaking, were properly accounted for, and a sufficient PLA balance existed. The decision retained the minor confiscation consequence while deleting the mandatory penalty and reducing the fine. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 12 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95940