https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110763 Delayed filing of a declaration for capital goods credit, coupled with failure to file a condonation application under Rule 57T(5), did not justify penalty where the credit itself had been allowed and its admissibility was never disputed. The omission was treated as a curable procedural irregularity arising from misplacement of the excise licence and declaration, not as a substantive breach warranting penal action. Penalty provisions under Rule 173Q(bb) were read as aimed at enforcing proper compliance in duty credit and accountal, not at punishing every technical default. On that basis, penalty was held unwarranted and was set aside. en-us Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Jan 2026 14:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110763 Delayed filing of a declaration for capital goods credit, coupled with failure to file a condonation application under Rule 57T(5), did not justify penalty where the credit itself had been allowed and its admissibility was never disputed. The omission was treated as a curable procedural irregularity arising from misplacement of the excise licence and declaration, not as a substantive breach warranting penal action. Penalty provisions under Rule 173Q(bb) were read as aimed at enforcing proper compliance in duty credit and accountal, not at punishing every technical default. On that basis, penalty was held unwarranted and was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110763