https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240108 The court upheld the duty demand, interest, and penalty under Section 11AC of the Act, 1944, in a case involving the seizure of a private notebook from a factory. Despite the son of the Licensee retracting his initial statement, the court found the recovery established based on his signed mahazar and subsequent statements. The penalty under Rule 25 was set aside, with provisions for reduction upon timely payment. The penalty on the son of the Licensee was revoked, and the appellant's appeal was allowed. en-us Fri, 06 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:49:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240108 The court upheld the duty demand, interest, and penalty under Section 11AC of the Act, 1944, in a case involving the seizure of a private notebook from a factory. Despite the son of the Licensee retracting his initial statement, the court found the recovery established based on his signed mahazar and subsequent statements. The penalty under Rule 25 was set aside, with provisions for reduction upon timely payment. The penalty on the son of the Licensee was revoked, and the appellant's appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 06 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240108