https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374212 CESTAT Mumbai held that contravention of export conditions by failing to submit proof of export and delaying export of goods cleared under bond attracted Rule 25(1)(d) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, but the record did not establish suppression with intent to evade duty. On that basis, the harsher penalty regime under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not justified, and the penalty could not be made automatically equal to the duty short paid merely because a breach was found. Penalty remained leviable, but was confined to a lower amount reflecting the nature of the contravention. en-us Wed, 05 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Jan 2019 18:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374212 CESTAT Mumbai held that contravention of export conditions by failing to submit proof of export and delaying export of goods cleared under bond attracted Rule 25(1)(d) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, but the record did not establish suppression with intent to evade duty. On that basis, the harsher penalty regime under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not justified, and the penalty could not be made automatically equal to the duty short paid merely because a breach was found. Penalty remained leviable, but was confined to a lower amount reflecting the nature of the contravention. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 05 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374212