https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190982 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. It was held that the penalty was not applicable as the show cause notice did not establish mens rea or elements required under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The absence of fraudulent intent or evasion of duty payment led to the conclusion that the penalty under Rule 25 was unjustified, aligning with a High Court ruling. Consequently, the impugned order was deemed lacking in merit, and the appeal was successful with consequential relief granted. en-us Mon, 30 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:51:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190982 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. It was held that the penalty was not applicable as the show cause notice did not establish mens rea or elements required under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The absence of fraudulent intent or evasion of duty payment led to the conclusion that the penalty under Rule 25 was unjustified, aligning with a High Court ruling. Consequently, the impugned order was deemed lacking in merit, and the appeal was successful with consequential relief granted. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 30 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190982