https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372649 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the 50% penalty imposed on the appellant for non-discharge of duty liability. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence of fraud or wilful violation, ruling that penalties under Section 11AC require proof of intention to evade duty, which was not established in this case. The decision highlighted the importance of proving fraud or wilful misstatement for penalty imposition under the Central Excise Act, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant and overturning the penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals). en-us Thu, 13 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Dec 2018 15:58:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372649 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the 50% penalty imposed on the appellant for non-discharge of duty liability. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence of fraud or wilful violation, ruling that penalties under Section 11AC require proof of intention to evade duty, which was not established in this case. The decision highlighted the importance of proving fraud or wilful misstatement for penalty imposition under the Central Excise Act, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant and overturning the penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 13 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372649