https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31520 Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was treated as a civil consequence for duty evasion, and the Court held that mens rea is not an implied ingredient of the provision. Reading the statute as plain and unambiguous, it declined to add a requirement the legislature did not express and rejected any inferred discretion to reduce the penalty below the statutory minimum. The earlier view treating mens rea as essential was disapproved, and the mandatory character of the penalty scheme was affirmed. en-us Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Sep 2025 12:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31520 Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was treated as a civil consequence for duty evasion, and the Court held that mens rea is not an implied ingredient of the provision. Reading the statute as plain and unambiguous, it declined to add a requirement the legislature did not express and rejected any inferred discretion to reduce the penalty below the statutory minimum. The earlier view treating mens rea as essential was disapproved, and the mandatory character of the penalty scheme was affirmed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31520