https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202590 Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was not sustainable because suppression with intent to evade duty was not established; the scrap was stored and auctioned under a known practice, permission to continue the practice had been sought, and duty was paid on sale, so the penalty was set aside. Penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules was sustainable because excisable goods had been removed without payment of duty; mens rea was not required for that contravention, so the penalty was upheld. The duty demand was not disputed and the appeal succeeded only in part. en-us Tue, 12 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Mar 2011 10:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202590 Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was not sustainable because suppression with intent to evade duty was not established; the scrap was stored and auctioned under a known practice, permission to continue the practice had been sought, and duty was paid on sale, so the penalty was set aside. Penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules was sustainable because excisable goods had been removed without payment of duty; mens rea was not required for that contravention, so the penalty was upheld. The duty demand was not disputed and the appeal succeeded only in part. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202590