https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151905 Later payment of differential central excise duty was treated as short payment at clearance, but penalty under Section 11AC was not attracted because fraud, suppression, or comparable culpable conduct was absent; on that footing, interest and penalty under Sections 11AB and 11AC were held unwarranted. By contrast, failure to determine and pay the correct duty before removal constituted contravention of Rule 173F, and penalty under Rule 173Q followed even without proof of intention to evade. The token penalty was therefore upheld, and the impugned order was sustained in full. en-us Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:22:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151905 Later payment of differential central excise duty was treated as short payment at clearance, but penalty under Section 11AC was not attracted because fraud, suppression, or comparable culpable conduct was absent; on that footing, interest and penalty under Sections 11AB and 11AC were held unwarranted. By contrast, failure to determine and pay the correct duty before removal constituted contravention of Rule 173F, and penalty under Rule 173Q followed even without proof of intention to evade. The token penalty was therefore upheld, and the impugned order was sustained in full. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151905