https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111179 Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 was unsustainable where the factory had cleared sugar on payment of appropriate excise duty and there was no allegation of wrongful refund or rebate without export. Liability for the additional duty arose from the merchant exporter's failure to export, which was dealt with separately, and the demand under the Sugar Export Promotion Act, 1958 had already been dropped. On those facts, the inference of diversion for home consumption and suppression with intent to evade duty could not be sustained, so the penalty was set aside. en-us Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Apr 2012 17:09:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111179 Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 was unsustainable where the factory had cleared sugar on payment of appropriate excise duty and there was no allegation of wrongful refund or rebate without export. Liability for the additional duty arose from the merchant exporter's failure to export, which was dealt with separately, and the demand under the Sugar Export Promotion Act, 1958 had already been dropped. On those facts, the inference of diversion for home consumption and suppression with intent to evade duty could not be sustained, so the penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111179