https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415570 Clandestine removal and suppression of duty liability justified penalty even though duty was paid after department detection and before the show-cause notice, because such post-detection payment did not amount to voluntary compliance and did not erase penalty or interest exposure. The Court also rejected the defect-in-notice challenge as it had not been raised at the proper stage. At the same time, the assessee was held entitled to the concessional penalty of 25% of the duty determined, since the adjudication order itself allowed that benefit and the payment period had to be applied in a manner that preserved appellate remedies. Time for payment was therefore permitted from receipt of the court's order. en-us Wed, 01 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Dec 2021 10:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415570 Clandestine removal and suppression of duty liability justified penalty even though duty was paid after department detection and before the show-cause notice, because such post-detection payment did not amount to voluntary compliance and did not erase penalty or interest exposure. The Court also rejected the defect-in-notice challenge as it had not been raised at the proper stage. At the same time, the assessee was held entitled to the concessional penalty of 25% of the duty determined, since the adjudication order itself allowed that benefit and the payment period had to be applied in a manner that preserved appellate remedies. Time for payment was therefore permitted from receipt of the court's order. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 01 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415570