https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356624 Delayed excise duty disclosed in the ER-1 return and paid with interest was treated as a payment default, not as suppression or intent to evade duty, so penalties under Rule 25 against the company and Rule 26 against the director were not sustainable. The same delayed payment nevertheless constituted a technical contravention of the rules, which justified a limited penalty under Rule 27 on the company. The director was granted complete relief. The governing principle was that belated payment accompanied by disclosure and interest defeats evasion-based penalties, while a reduced penalty may still apply for the underlying non-compliance. en-us Fri, 17 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Mar 2018 06:49:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356624 Delayed excise duty disclosed in the ER-1 return and paid with interest was treated as a payment default, not as suppression or intent to evade duty, so penalties under Rule 25 against the company and Rule 26 against the director were not sustainable. The same delayed payment nevertheless constituted a technical contravention of the rules, which justified a limited penalty under Rule 27 on the company. The director was granted complete relief. The governing principle was that belated payment accompanied by disclosure and interest defeats evasion-based penalties, while a reduced penalty may still apply for the underlying non-compliance. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356624