https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99931 Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was examined in relation to removal of printed cartons without registration, prescribed records, or duty compliance. The majority view was that clauses (a), (b) and (c) create penalty liability for contraventions of the excise rules and do not require proof of mens rea as a statutory condition; on the admitted facts, the contravention was established, although bona fide belief and later duty payment were relevant only to quantum, so the penalty was reduced to a nominal amount. The dissent considered the excisability controversy and conflicting case law sufficient to support bona fide belief and would have deleted the penalty entirely. en-us Tue, 28 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:12:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99931 Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was examined in relation to removal of printed cartons without registration, prescribed records, or duty compliance. The majority view was that clauses (a), (b) and (c) create penalty liability for contraventions of the excise rules and do not require proof of mens rea as a statutory condition; on the admitted facts, the contravention was established, although bona fide belief and later duty payment were relevant only to quantum, so the penalty was reduced to a nominal amount. The dissent considered the excisability controversy and conflicting case law sufficient to support bona fide belief and would have deleted the penalty entirely. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 28 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99931