https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250339 The Tribunal held that penalties under Rule 25 could not be imposed on the main appellant as they did not contravene rules with intent to evade duty. However, the Director was rightly penalized under Rule 26 for being aware of the non-duty paid nature of purchased goods. The penalties were adjusted accordingly, with the Director's penalty reduced to Rs. 50,000. The appeals by the appellants were disposed of based on the above decisions. en-us Fri, 01 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Aug 2014 09:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250339 The Tribunal held that penalties under Rule 25 could not be imposed on the main appellant as they did not contravene rules with intent to evade duty. However, the Director was rightly penalized under Rule 26 for being aware of the non-duty paid nature of purchased goods. The penalties were adjusted accordingly, with the Director's penalty reduced to Rs. 50,000. The appeals by the appellants were disposed of based on the above decisions. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 01 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250339