https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235597 Penalty proceedings under Rule 173Q(1)(d) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were treated as separate from the earlier determination of excisability and suppression for limitation purposes. The Delhi HC held that, when the Tribunal remanded the matter for reconsideration of penalty, the Commissioner had to examine the evidence produced by the assessee on bona fides and alleged intent to evade duty. Because that remand material was not considered, the penalty order could not be sustained. The matter was sent back for fresh decision on levy of penalty. en-us Mon, 01 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Jul 2013 10:01:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235597 Penalty proceedings under Rule 173Q(1)(d) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were treated as separate from the earlier determination of excisability and suppression for limitation purposes. The Delhi HC held that, when the Tribunal remanded the matter for reconsideration of penalty, the Commissioner had to examine the evidence produced by the assessee on bona fides and alleged intent to evade duty. Because that remand material was not considered, the penalty order could not be sustained. The matter was sent back for fresh decision on levy of penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235597