https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125435 The judgment rejected the Revenue's appeals challenging the imposition of penalties under Rule 25 and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The court emphasized the lack of evidence supporting clandestine removal of goods and the absence of mens rea for penalty imposition. The decision aligned with the Commissioner (Appeals) ruling, highlighting that the duty was paid before the show cause notice issuance, but mens rea remained essential for penalty imposition under Section 11AC. The court concluded that the penalties were unwarranted, upholding the original authority's decision to set them aside. en-us Mon, 18 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:10:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125435 The judgment rejected the Revenue's appeals challenging the imposition of penalties under Rule 25 and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The court emphasized the lack of evidence supporting clandestine removal of goods and the absence of mens rea for penalty imposition. The decision aligned with the Commissioner (Appeals) ruling, highlighting that the duty was paid before the show cause notice issuance, but mens rea remained essential for penalty imposition under Section 11AC. The court concluded that the penalties were unwarranted, upholding the original authority's decision to set them aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 18 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125435