https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352753 The Tribunal remanded the case to the adjudicating authority to quantify duty demands, emphasizing the authority's role in penalty imposition and the provision of reduced penalty options. Penalties under Section 11AC were reviewed, with M/s.Sai Poly Industries granted the option of reduced penalty. Penalties under Rule 26 of CER 2002 for M/s.J.K. Fishnets and Shri P.R. Sampath Kumar were upheld. The judgment underscored the significance of accurate duty quantification, appropriate penalty imposition, and penalties reflecting the severity of violations. The appeals were partially allowed and others dismissed accordingly. en-us Tue, 12 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Mar 2019 16:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352753 The Tribunal remanded the case to the adjudicating authority to quantify duty demands, emphasizing the authority's role in penalty imposition and the provision of reduced penalty options. Penalties under Section 11AC were reviewed, with M/s.Sai Poly Industries granted the option of reduced penalty. Penalties under Rule 26 of CER 2002 for M/s.J.K. Fishnets and Shri P.R. Sampath Kumar were upheld. The judgment underscored the significance of accurate duty quantification, appropriate penalty imposition, and penalties reflecting the severity of violations. The appeals were partially allowed and others dismissed accordingly. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352753