https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175600 Delayed payment of central excise duty, where goods were duly accounted for and cleared under invoices and the delay was attributed to loss of records in a flood, was treated as a procedural contravention rather than deliberate evasion. In the absence of circumstances indicating suppression or intent to evade duty, the harsher penalty provision under Rule 25 was held inapplicable, and the default was aligned with Rule 27, which contemplates only a token penalty. The article notes that the penalty was therefore reduced to the lesser penalty prescribed for procedural breach. en-us Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Nov 2015 11:16:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175600 Delayed payment of central excise duty, where goods were duly accounted for and cleared under invoices and the delay was attributed to loss of records in a flood, was treated as a procedural contravention rather than deliberate evasion. In the absence of circumstances indicating suppression or intent to evade duty, the harsher penalty provision under Rule 25 was held inapplicable, and the default was aligned with Rule 27, which contemplates only a token penalty. The article notes that the penalty was therefore reduced to the lesser penalty prescribed for procedural breach. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175600