https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354521 Penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held unsustainable where inclusion of moulds and tools amortisation cost in assessable value remained a debatable issue during the relevant period, supported by conflicting Tribunal rulings for assessees and settled against the assessee only later by a Larger Bench. The omission was therefore not treated as wilful or mala fide conduct warranting a separate penalty. Because penalty under Section 11AC had already been imposed on the confirmed demand, the additional Rule 173Q penalty was set aside, while the demand, interest and Section 11AC finding were left undisturbed. en-us Mon, 30 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Jan 2018 08:03:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354521 Penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held unsustainable where inclusion of moulds and tools amortisation cost in assessable value remained a debatable issue during the relevant period, supported by conflicting Tribunal rulings for assessees and settled against the assessee only later by a Larger Bench. The omission was therefore not treated as wilful or mala fide conduct warranting a separate penalty. Because penalty under Section 11AC had already been imposed on the confirmed demand, the additional Rule 173Q penalty was set aside, while the demand, interest and Section 11AC finding were left undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 30 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354521