https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205546 Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not treated as mandatory at the full duty amount in the circumstances described. Yarn had been sent for job work during the period governed by Rule 12B, the duty demand had already been paid, and the adjudicating authority's equal penalty was moderated because the rule did not require penalty to invariably match the duty evaded. The appellant's lack of its own manufacturing facility, limited means, and the later repeal of Rule 12B were considered relevant factors for leniency, and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 20,000. en-us Mon, 25 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Jul 2011 17:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205546 Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not treated as mandatory at the full duty amount in the circumstances described. Yarn had been sent for job work during the period governed by Rule 12B, the duty demand had already been paid, and the adjudicating authority's equal penalty was moderated because the rule did not require penalty to invariably match the duty evaded. The appellant's lack of its own manufacturing facility, limited means, and the later repeal of Rule 12B were considered relevant factors for leniency, and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 20,000. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 25 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205546