https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218106 Delayed payment of central excise duty under rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was held to be governed by that rule's own consequences, including payment without utilising CENVAT credit, rather than by automatic invocation of section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal found that the ingredients of section 11AC, particularly suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, were not independently established on the record. As penalty under rule 25(1)(a) had already been imposed, it was treated as sufficient, and penalty under section 11AC was held not leviable. en-us Fri, 05 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 May 2013 10:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218106 Delayed payment of central excise duty under rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was held to be governed by that rule's own consequences, including payment without utilising CENVAT credit, rather than by automatic invocation of section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal found that the ingredients of section 11AC, particularly suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, were not independently established on the record. As penalty under rule 25(1)(a) had already been imposed, it was treated as sufficient, and penalty under section 11AC was held not leviable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 05 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218106