https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209793 Products were treated as liable to valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, so the duty demand was maintained. The Tribunal, following its earlier view in the assessee's own matter, held that the extended penalty under Section 11AC was not attracted because the dispute was essentially one of legal interpretation. The penalty under Rule 25 was therefore reduced to a token amount of Rs. 25,000. Separate personal penalties on the proprietor and manager-cum-authorised signatory under Rule 26 were set aside. The duty demand and incidental confiscation remained undisturbed, with only partial relief granted on penalties. en-us Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Jul 2013 12:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209793 Products were treated as liable to valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, so the duty demand was maintained. The Tribunal, following its earlier view in the assessee's own matter, held that the extended penalty under Section 11AC was not attracted because the dispute was essentially one of legal interpretation. The penalty under Rule 25 was therefore reduced to a token amount of Rs. 25,000. Separate personal penalties on the proprietor and manager-cum-authorised signatory under Rule 26 were set aside. The duty demand and incidental confiscation remained undisturbed, with only partial relief granted on penalties. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209793