https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441203 The appeal challenged the imposition of penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant, a manufacturer of Ammonia and Urea, contended that the penalty was unjust as the excess duty paid was adjusted due to changes in charges and the introduction of Goods and Service Tax. The court found that there was no evidence of intent to evade payment, as the duty was promptly paid upon discovery of the shortfall. Consequently, the penalty was deemed unwarranted, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 25 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Aug 2023 07:48:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441203 The appeal challenged the imposition of penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant, a manufacturer of Ammonia and Urea, contended that the penalty was unjust as the excess duty paid was adjusted due to changes in charges and the introduction of Goods and Service Tax. The court found that there was no evidence of intent to evade payment, as the duty was promptly paid upon discovery of the shortfall. Consequently, the penalty was deemed unwarranted, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441203