https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328014 The appeal was dismissed as the appellant's conduct showed intent to evade duty, justifying the penalty imposed under Rule 25 (1) (a) (d) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Despite the appellant's argument regarding the applicability of Section 11A (2B), the adjudicating authority found the appellant in violation of Central Excise Rules for not paying appropriate duty, emphasizing the awareness of exceeding turnover limits while claiming exemptions. The penalty, approximately 25% of the evaded duty, was deemed justified based on the circumstances, as it was not equivalent to the full duty evaded. en-us Wed, 04 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 May 2016 10:35:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328014 The appeal was dismissed as the appellant's conduct showed intent to evade duty, justifying the penalty imposed under Rule 25 (1) (a) (d) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Despite the appellant's argument regarding the applicability of Section 11A (2B), the adjudicating authority found the appellant in violation of Central Excise Rules for not paying appropriate duty, emphasizing the awareness of exceeding turnover limits while claiming exemptions. The penalty, approximately 25% of the evaded duty, was deemed justified based on the circumstances, as it was not equivalent to the full duty evaded. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 04 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328014