https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354520 Belated payment of central excise duty, where the default was disclosed in monthly returns and the duty was later paid with interest, did not justify penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal applied the settled view that such a case is not one of concealed liability or the stricter misconduct associated with Section 11AC, so the harsher penalty was unwarranted. Instead, the proper penalty provision was Rule 27, which permits only a limited penalty up to Rs. 5,000. The operative effect is that transparent delayed payment attracts only the lesser penal consequence. en-us Fri, 27 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Jan 2018 08:03:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354520 Belated payment of central excise duty, where the default was disclosed in monthly returns and the duty was later paid with interest, did not justify penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal applied the settled view that such a case is not one of concealed liability or the stricter misconduct associated with Section 11AC, so the harsher penalty was unwarranted. Instead, the proper penalty provision was Rule 27, which permits only a limited penalty up to Rs. 5,000. The operative effect is that transparent delayed payment attracts only the lesser penal consequence. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 27 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354520