https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107614 Leniency in penalty was declined because duty was paid only after departmental detection of the contravention, and voluntary confession or pre-detection payment was treated as the relevant basis for mitigation. The text also states that an additional penalty imposed with reference to Rule 173Q and connected rules lacked proper legal support and could not be sustained. As a result, the penalty reduction was refused on the facts, but the separate penalty order resting on those rules was set aside. en-us Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:22:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107614 Leniency in penalty was declined because duty was paid only after departmental detection of the contravention, and voluntary confession or pre-detection payment was treated as the relevant basis for mitigation. The text also states that an additional penalty imposed with reference to Rule 173Q and connected rules lacked proper legal support and could not be sustained. As a result, the penalty reduction was refused on the facts, but the separate penalty order resting on those rules was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 01 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107614