https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336068 Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could not sustain a demand for delayed payment of education cess and secondary and higher education cess where the default was nominal, disclosed in the ER-1 return, and later paid with interest. Absence of mens rea or intention to evade duty weighed against imposition of a consequential penalty. The restriction under Rule 8(3A) had also been held unconstitutional by various High Courts. Accordingly, the demand and penalty were unsustainable on the stated facts. 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 Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could not sustain a demand for delayed payment of education cess and secondary and higher education cess where the default was nominal, disclosed in the ER-1 return, and later paid with interest. Absence of mens rea or intention to evade duty weighed against imposition of a consequential penalty. The restriction under Rule 8(3A) had also been held unconstitutional by various High Courts. Accordingly, the demand and penalty were unsustainable on the stated facts. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 14 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336068