https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772645 CESTAT Chennai held that undervaluation of goods by appellant was inadvertent, not deliberate suppression. The tribunal found the error occurred due to system-generated cost calculations not accounting for conversion charges after procedural changes. Appellant demonstrated good faith by suo motu calculating and paying differential duty with interest before notice issuance. Revenue failed to prove willful intent to evade duty. The adjudicating authority's finding regarding non-payment of 1% penalty under Section 11(6) was incorrect as prerequisites under Section 11(5) weren't met. Penalties under Section 11AC on both parties were set aside. Appeal allowed. en-us Wed, 11 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 12:30:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772645 CESTAT Chennai held that undervaluation of goods by appellant was inadvertent, not deliberate suppression. The tribunal found the error occurred due to system-generated cost calculations not accounting for conversion charges after procedural changes. Appellant demonstrated good faith by suo motu calculating and paying differential duty with interest before notice issuance. Revenue failed to prove willful intent to evade duty. The adjudicating authority's finding regarding non-payment of 1% penalty under Section 11(6) was incorrect as prerequisites under Section 11(5) weren't met. Penalties under Section 11AC on both parties were set aside. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772645