https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126195 Penalty was not sustainable under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 173Q, because the statutory penalty mechanism for duty evasion was treated as operating under Section 11AC in relation to Section 11A; the deletion of penalty was therefore upheld. The demand under Section 11A and the applicability of Section 11AC were remitted for fresh adjudication because the assessee had complained of denial of fair opportunity and the record indicated incomplete consideration of the pleadings. The adjudicating authority was directed to examine the alleged clandestine removal issue afresh after giving a hearing and passing a speaking order. en-us Thu, 30 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Nov 2012 11:48:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126195 Penalty was not sustainable under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 173Q, because the statutory penalty mechanism for duty evasion was treated as operating under Section 11AC in relation to Section 11A; the deletion of penalty was therefore upheld. The demand under Section 11A and the applicability of Section 11AC were remitted for fresh adjudication because the assessee had complained of denial of fair opportunity and the record indicated incomplete consideration of the pleadings. The adjudicating authority was directed to examine the alleged clandestine removal issue afresh after giving a hearing and passing a speaking order. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 30 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126195