https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385472 The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by setting aside the penalty imposed under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The decision emphasized that the penalty was not justified as there was no evidence of deliberate evasion or wrongdoing by the appellant, who had paid a portion of the differential duty along with interest. The duty discrepancy arose from the application of the CAS-4 method, leading to the revaluation of goods transferred to a sister unit. The Tribunal found no suppression of fact or malicious intent, concluding that the penalty under section 11AC was unwarranted in this case. en-us Tue, 18 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Sep 2019 07:27:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385472 The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by setting aside the penalty imposed under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The decision emphasized that the penalty was not justified as there was no evidence of deliberate evasion or wrongdoing by the appellant, who had paid a portion of the differential duty along with interest. The duty discrepancy arose from the application of the CAS-4 method, leading to the revaluation of goods transferred to a sister unit. The Tribunal found no suppression of fact or malicious intent, concluding that the penalty under section 11AC was unwarranted in this case. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385472