https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208932 Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was not mandatory on these facts because the goods were cleared after reprocessing under the prescribed procedure, the packing mistake arose from a shift change and use of similar boxes, and the transactions were properly recorded in the books. The elements required for equivalent penalty-fraud, collusion, suppression of facts, wilful misstatement, or contravention with intent to evade duty-were not established. The appellate authority was therefore justified in reducing the penalty, and the departmental challenge failed. en-us Thu, 15 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Feb 2012 06:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208932 Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was not mandatory on these facts because the goods were cleared after reprocessing under the prescribed procedure, the packing mistake arose from a shift change and use of similar boxes, and the transactions were properly recorded in the books. The elements required for equivalent penalty-fraud, collusion, suppression of facts, wilful misstatement, or contravention with intent to evade duty-were not established. The appellate authority was therefore justified in reducing the penalty, and the departmental challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 15 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208932