https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350989 Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was held unsustainable where the assessee filed ER-1 returns, worked under purchase orders stating that no excise duty was payable on fabrication charges, and disclosed the relevant activity to the department. The absence of material showing mala fides, deliberate suppression, or unlawful gain meant penalty could not be justified merely because duty was not paid in time. The penalty was set aside, while the duty demand and interest were left undisturbed because they were not contested. en-us Wed, 13 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Nov 2017 07:49:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350989 Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was held unsustainable where the assessee filed ER-1 returns, worked under purchase orders stating that no excise duty was payable on fabrication charges, and disclosed the relevant activity to the department. The absence of material showing mala fides, deliberate suppression, or unlawful gain meant penalty could not be justified merely because duty was not paid in time. The penalty was set aside, while the duty demand and interest were left undisturbed because they were not contested. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 13 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350989