https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357411 The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Rule 27 by the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that penalties under Section 11AC or Rule 25 are not applicable in cases of default in monthly duty payment under Rule 8(3A) where there is no intent to evade duty. The judgment clarifies the distinction between penalties under different rules based on the nature of non-compliance with duty payment obligations, highlighting the crucial factor of the absence of intent to evade duty in cases of delayed payment. en-us Thu, 22 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Mar 2018 07:11:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357411 The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Rule 27 by the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that penalties under Section 11AC or Rule 25 are not applicable in cases of default in monthly duty payment under Rule 8(3A) where there is no intent to evade duty. The judgment clarifies the distinction between penalties under different rules based on the nature of non-compliance with duty payment obligations, highlighting the crucial factor of the absence of intent to evade duty in cases of delayed payment. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 22 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357411