https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352817 The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the confiscation and penalty imposed on a manufacturer for record-keeping discrepancies, ruling that improper maintenance did not indicate an intention to evade duty. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that penalties under Rule 25 are subject to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, which the Revenue failed to establish. The manufacturer was granted consequential relief, underscoring the requirement for evidence of intent to evade duty before penalties can be imposed. en-us Fri, 27 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Dec 2017 10:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352817 The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the confiscation and penalty imposed on a manufacturer for record-keeping discrepancies, ruling that improper maintenance did not indicate an intention to evade duty. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that penalties under Rule 25 are subject to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, which the Revenue failed to establish. The manufacturer was granted consequential relief, underscoring the requirement for evidence of intent to evade duty before penalties can be imposed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 27 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352817