https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110159 Removal of excisable goods without intimation and without payment of duty was treated as suppression, attracting penalty under Rule 173Q(1) read with Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The note also records that the penalty position was considered consistent with the post-Section 11AC framework. However, the quantum had to be proportionate to the circumstances, including the appellant's status as a State Government workshop manufacturing parts for repair of State-owned tubewells. Penalty was therefore sustained in principle, but reduced on proportionality grounds. en-us Wed, 10 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Apr 2012 10:06:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110159 Removal of excisable goods without intimation and without payment of duty was treated as suppression, attracting penalty under Rule 173Q(1) read with Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The note also records that the penalty position was considered consistent with the post-Section 11AC framework. However, the quantum had to be proportionate to the circumstances, including the appellant's status as a State Government workshop manufacturing parts for repair of State-owned tubewells. Penalty was therefore sustained in principle, but reduced on proportionality grounds. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 10 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110159