https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244997 The court ruled that the penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was impermissible as there was no intent to evade duty, despite the contravention of Rule 8(3A). Instead, a penalty under Rule 27 was imposed on the appellants. The judgment highlighted the significance of considering intent and compliance with relevant provisions when applying penalties in excise duty cases. en-us Tue, 31 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:08:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244997 The court ruled that the penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was impermissible as there was no intent to evade duty, despite the contravention of Rule 8(3A). Instead, a penalty under Rule 27 was imposed on the appellants. The judgment highlighted the significance of considering intent and compliance with relevant provisions when applying penalties in excise duty cases. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 31 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244997