https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126653 The tribunal analyzed the interpretation of Notification No. 22/2003-C.E. in a case involving an EOU availing exemption for TOR steel rods. It was found that steel rods were not explicitly covered under the notification, leading to a dispute. Regarding the penalty imposed under Section 11AC, the tribunal ruled that the Show Cause Notice did not allege willful suppression of facts, rendering the penalty unsustainable. As a result, the penalty of Rs. 50,000 was set aside, emphasizing the need for specific allegations to justify penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. en-us Fri, 15 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Dec 2012 13:47:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126653 The tribunal analyzed the interpretation of Notification No. 22/2003-C.E. in a case involving an EOU availing exemption for TOR steel rods. It was found that steel rods were not explicitly covered under the notification, leading to a dispute. Regarding the penalty imposed under Section 11AC, the tribunal ruled that the Show Cause Notice did not allege willful suppression of facts, rendering the penalty unsustainable. As a result, the penalty of Rs. 50,000 was set aside, emphasizing the need for specific allegations to justify penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 15 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126653