https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233328 Use of two sets of invoices, with one set understating the price for central excise purposes, coupled with incorrect declarations under Rule 173C, constituted misdeclaration and suppression with intent to evade duty. On that basis, penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was upheld. The same finding also meant that waiver of interest under Section 11AB(2) was unavailable, because the demand arose from suppressed and misdeclared price particulars. The appeal consequently failed, with both the penalty and interest demand sustained on the adjudicated duty liability. en-us Mon, 18 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Apr 2013 11:12:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233328 Use of two sets of invoices, with one set understating the price for central excise purposes, coupled with incorrect declarations under Rule 173C, constituted misdeclaration and suppression with intent to evade duty. On that basis, penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was upheld. The same finding also meant that waiver of interest under Section 11AB(2) was unavailable, because the demand arose from suppressed and misdeclared price particulars. The appeal consequently failed, with both the penalty and interest demand sustained on the adjudicated duty liability. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 18 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233328