https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336068 Demand for non-payment of education cess and secondary higher education cess, along with the related penalty, was examined against Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The note records that the default was nominal, reflected in the ER-1 return, and later discharged with interest, which was treated as indicating no mens rea or intent to evade duty. It also notes that Rule 8(3A) had been held unconstitutional by several High Courts. On that reasoning, the demand and consequential penalty were considered unsustainable. en-us Fri, 14 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Dec 2016 17:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336068 Demand for non-payment of education cess and secondary higher education cess, along with the related penalty, was examined against Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The note records that the default was nominal, reflected in the ER-1 return, and later discharged with interest, which was treated as indicating no mens rea or intent to evade duty. It also notes that Rule 8(3A) had been held unconstitutional by several High Courts. On that reasoning, the demand and consequential penalty were considered unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 14 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336068