https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431653 Removal of semi-finished goods to a hired premises for job work, when supported by challans and records, was treated as a procedural lapse rather than a clandestine clearance. In the absence of material showing mala fide intent or an attempt to evade duty, the major penalty under Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with the intent requirement reflected in Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was considered unwarranted. The technical failure to give prior intimation could still justify a limited penalty under Rule 27. The penalty was therefore reduced to a token amount for the procedural breach only. en-us Fri, 16 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Dec 2022 09:15:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431653 Removal of semi-finished goods to a hired premises for job work, when supported by challans and records, was treated as a procedural lapse rather than a clandestine clearance. In the absence of material showing mala fide intent or an attempt to evade duty, the major penalty under Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with the intent requirement reflected in Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was considered unwarranted. The technical failure to give prior intimation could still justify a limited penalty under Rule 27. The penalty was therefore reduced to a token amount for the procedural breach only. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 16 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431653