https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161113 The High Court confirmed the duty demand on the appellant and director, upholding penalties imposed by the Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal reduced penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 25, which the Revenue challenged. The High Court remanded for penalty reassessment in line with a Supreme Court decision. Penalties under Section 11AC were enhanced to the duty amount with a reduction option upon timely payment. Rule 25 penalties were upheld. The director's penalty was set aside due to Rule 26 misapplication and lack of discussion on involvement in duty evasion. The judgment disposed of appeals by confirming duty, adjusting penalties, upholding Rule 25 penalties, and setting aside director penalties. en-us Tue, 07 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 May 2017 09:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161113 The High Court confirmed the duty demand on the appellant and director, upholding penalties imposed by the Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal reduced penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 25, which the Revenue challenged. The High Court remanded for penalty reassessment in line with a Supreme Court decision. Penalties under Section 11AC were enhanced to the duty amount with a reduction option upon timely payment. Rule 25 penalties were upheld. The director's penalty was set aside due to Rule 26 misapplication and lack of discussion on involvement in duty evasion. The judgment disposed of appeals by confirming duty, adjusting penalties, upholding Rule 25 penalties, and setting aside director penalties. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 07 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161113