https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1763 Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were treated as governed by prior decisions of the same High Court, which had already accepted the assessee's position that pre-show cause notice payment of duty did not by itself alter the settled consequence. The Court also followed its earlier view that mens rea was not a necessary precondition for invoking Rule 25 penal provisions. As both issues had been concluded by binding precedent, the Revenue's challenge was rejected and the assessee prevailed. en-us Tue, 11 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1763 Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were treated as governed by prior decisions of the same High Court, which had already accepted the assessee's position that pre-show cause notice payment of duty did not by itself alter the settled consequence. The Court also followed its earlier view that mens rea was not a necessary precondition for invoking Rule 25 penal provisions. As both issues had been concluded by binding precedent, the Revenue's challenge was rejected and the assessee prevailed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 11 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1763