https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220393 Price escalation received in 1999 created duty liability at that time, and failure to pay the duty or inform the department constituted suppression of material facts. Because the duty demand had already been sustained on the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, the same statutory conditions also supported penalty under Section 11AC. Once those conditions were met, the penalty was mandatory and the adjudicating or appellate authority had no discretion to reduce it below the confirmed duty demand. The penalty was therefore equal to the duty demand confirmed. en-us Fri, 24 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Jan 2013 06:20:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220393 Price escalation received in 1999 created duty liability at that time, and failure to pay the duty or inform the department constituted suppression of material facts. Because the duty demand had already been sustained on the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, the same statutory conditions also supported penalty under Section 11AC. Once those conditions were met, the penalty was mandatory and the adjudicating or appellate authority had no discretion to reduce it below the confirmed duty demand. The penalty was therefore equal to the duty demand confirmed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 24 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220393