https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251639 The majority decision upheld the duty demand based on the higher number of machines found in April 2011 under the 7th proviso to Rule 9, despite the absence of misdeclaration, but set aside the penalty due to lack of fraudulent intent. The dissenting opinion argued that the 7th proviso should only apply in cases of misdeclaration, advocating for liability limited to interest on delayed duty payment. The appeal was allowed with relief, confirming duty liability under the 7th proviso and rejecting the penalty, emphasizing strict adherence to tax laws. en-us Thu, 07 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251639 The majority decision upheld the duty demand based on the higher number of machines found in April 2011 under the 7th proviso to Rule 9, despite the absence of misdeclaration, but set aside the penalty due to lack of fraudulent intent. The dissenting opinion argued that the 7th proviso should only apply in cases of misdeclaration, advocating for liability limited to interest on delayed duty payment. The appeal was allowed with relief, confirming duty liability under the 7th proviso and rejecting the penalty, emphasizing strict adherence to tax laws. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 07 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251639