https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240621 The appeal was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore as both penalties under Rule 15(1) and Rule 15(2) were deemed unsustainable. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty under Rule 15(1), which was not challenged by the Revenue. The absence of duty determination under Section 11A(2) was crucial, and without formal determination, penalties under Rule 15(2) could not be imposed. The appellant's arguments regarding lack of evidence supporting allegations and tampering of delivery challans were considered, leading to the conclusion that the interest liability was confirmed, while the penalties were set aside. en-us Fri, 18 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Dec 2013 06:24:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240621 The appeal was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore as both penalties under Rule 15(1) and Rule 15(2) were deemed unsustainable. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty under Rule 15(1), which was not challenged by the Revenue. The absence of duty determination under Section 11A(2) was crucial, and without formal determination, penalties under Rule 15(2) could not be imposed. The appellant's arguments regarding lack of evidence supporting allegations and tampering of delivery challans were considered, leading to the conclusion that the interest liability was confirmed, while the penalties were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 18 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240621