https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107339 Sections 11AC and 11AB of the Central Excise Act could not govern the major part of a duty demand that related to a period before their insertion, so liability under those provisions was not sustainable for the earlier period. Payment of duty before the show cause notice did not by itself eliminate penalty under Rule 173Q where suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty was indicated; the absence of proof that the relevant agreement had been disclosed to departmental officers supported suppression. Confiscation and redemption fine under Rule 173Q(2)(a) were also upheld because habitual offending was not a necessary condition where the facts fell within that clause, though the monetary burden was reduced. en-us Sat, 02 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:19:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107339 Sections 11AC and 11AB of the Central Excise Act could not govern the major part of a duty demand that related to a period before their insertion, so liability under those provisions was not sustainable for the earlier period. Payment of duty before the show cause notice did not by itself eliminate penalty under Rule 173Q where suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty was indicated; the absence of proof that the relevant agreement had been disclosed to departmental officers supported suppression. Confiscation and redemption fine under Rule 173Q(2)(a) were also upheld because habitual offending was not a necessary condition where the facts fell within that clause, though the monetary burden was reduced. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 02 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107339