https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213143 A premeditated scheme to evade duty was rejected for lack of supporting evidence. On the excise side, the Tribunal stated that mens rea is not a precondition for penalty under Rule 173Q, so a limited penalty could be sustained even without proved intent to evade duty. On the customs side, Section 114A could not be invoked because the notice did not propose confiscation and the conditions for that penalty were not established; proof of guilty intention was absent. The discussion therefore distinguishes excise penalties that may operate without mens rea from customs penalties that depend on such proof. en-us Tue, 14 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 May 2012 06:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213143 A premeditated scheme to evade duty was rejected for lack of supporting evidence. On the excise side, the Tribunal stated that mens rea is not a precondition for penalty under Rule 173Q, so a limited penalty could be sustained even without proved intent to evade duty. On the customs side, Section 114A could not be invoked because the notice did not propose confiscation and the conditions for that penalty were not established; proof of guilty intention was absent. The discussion therefore distinguishes excise penalties that may operate without mens rea from customs penalties that depend on such proof. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 14 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213143