https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203764 Payment of duty under Section 11A(2B) did not, on this record, bar consideration of penalty under Rule 25 where the revenue relied on the fraud, suppression, wilful misstatement or intent-to-evade exception. The court found that the contention that the stock shortage was attributable to an intention to evade duty was not raised before the Tribunal and was essentially factual. In an appeal under Section 35G, it declined to examine that new factual plea, held that no substantial question of law arose, and left the penalty order undisturbed. en-us Fri, 07 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203764 Payment of duty under Section 11A(2B) did not, on this record, bar consideration of penalty under Rule 25 where the revenue relied on the fraud, suppression, wilful misstatement or intent-to-evade exception. The court found that the contention that the stock shortage was attributable to an intention to evade duty was not raised before the Tribunal and was essentially factual. In an appeal under Section 35G, it declined to examine that new factual plea, held that no substantial question of law arose, and left the penalty order undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 07 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203764