https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107455 Duty on removed capital goods was treated as undisputed, and a vague plea of "human error" was found insufficient to show bona fide non-payment. The commentary states that Section 11AC was already in force when the removal occurred, and that both Section 11AC and Rule 173Q were then operative. On that basis, penalty could be sustained under either provision, and no apportionment between the two penalty provisions was required. The challenge to the demand and penalty was therefore rejected. en-us Fri, 17 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:14:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107455 Duty on removed capital goods was treated as undisputed, and a vague plea of "human error" was found insufficient to show bona fide non-payment. The commentary states that Section 11AC was already in force when the removal occurred, and that both Section 11AC and Rule 173Q were then operative. On that basis, penalty could be sustained under either provision, and no apportionment between the two penalty provisions was required. The challenge to the demand and penalty was therefore rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107455