https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110408 Penalty under Rule 173Q was sustained because the short payment of duty arose from an irregular clearance procedure based on depot and part-wise pricing, while assessment and RT-12 returns were required to reflect duty at the factory stage. The conduct was not treated as a mere inadvertent error: there was no material showing regular departmental acceptance of depot invoices, and the adopted method involved disregard of law and procedure. Detection of the short levy by the department later did not erase culpability. Although departmental inaction was a mitigating factor, the gravity of the conduct supported an inference of intention to evade duty, and no reduction of penalty was warranted. en-us Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:34:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110408 Penalty under Rule 173Q was sustained because the short payment of duty arose from an irregular clearance procedure based on depot and part-wise pricing, while assessment and RT-12 returns were required to reflect duty at the factory stage. The conduct was not treated as a mere inadvertent error: there was no material showing regular departmental acceptance of depot invoices, and the adopted method involved disregard of law and procedure. Detection of the short levy by the department later did not erase culpability. Although departmental inaction was a mitigating factor, the gravity of the conduct supported an inference of intention to evade duty, and no reduction of penalty was warranted. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110408