https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284486 Cum-duty benefit was unavailable where the assessee had clandestinely removed goods and failed to show that the sale price included excise duty; on those facts, the duty demand could not be reduced on a cum-duty basis. The settlement penalty was also sustained because Section 32K of the Central Excise Act, 1944 permits the Settlement Commission to grant immunity from penalty, and that discretion had been exercised after considering seized materials, admitted suppression, and the gravity of clandestine removals. No legal infirmity or perversity was shown in the settlement order, so the challenge failed. en-us Thu, 20 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Nov 2019 09:58:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284486 Cum-duty benefit was unavailable where the assessee had clandestinely removed goods and failed to show that the sale price included excise duty; on those facts, the duty demand could not be reduced on a cum-duty basis. The settlement penalty was also sustained because Section 32K of the Central Excise Act, 1944 permits the Settlement Commission to grant immunity from penalty, and that discretion had been exercised after considering seized materials, admitted suppression, and the gravity of clandestine removals. No legal infirmity or perversity was shown in the settlement order, so the challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 20 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284486