https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114222 Penalty under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained where the demand itself was dropped and the record did not establish clandestine removal, non-duty-paid clearances, or any contravention with intent to evade duty. In the absence of a confirmed duty demand and supporting evidence of evasion, the legal foundation for penalty failed. The penalty was therefore set aside in favour of the assessee, confirming that excise penalty cannot survive without proof of the alleged violation and the requisite intent to evade duty. en-us Tue, 25 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 May 2012 13:21:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114222 Penalty under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be sustained where the demand itself was dropped and the record did not establish clandestine removal, non-duty-paid clearances, or any contravention with intent to evade duty. In the absence of a confirmed duty demand and supporting evidence of evasion, the legal foundation for penalty failed. The penalty was therefore set aside in favour of the assessee, confirming that excise penalty cannot survive without proof of the alleged violation and the requisite intent to evade duty. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114222