https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48039 Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and Rule 96ZQ(5) of the Central Excise Rules were examined on whether mens rea is necessary for penalty. The Court compared these provisions with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act and treated them as part of a common penal scheme for concealment, suppression, or default, indicating a civil liability and strict liability approach. It held that the earlier view requiring mens rea needed reconsideration in light of contrary authority and statutory explanations. The matter was referred to the Chief Justice of India for placement before a larger bench, and no final ruling was given on the substantive penalty question. en-us Thu, 19 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Apr 2025 11:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48039 Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and Rule 96ZQ(5) of the Central Excise Rules were examined on whether mens rea is necessary for penalty. The Court compared these provisions with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act and treated them as part of a common penal scheme for concealment, suppression, or default, indicating a civil liability and strict liability approach. It held that the earlier view requiring mens rea needed reconsideration in light of contrary authority and statutory explanations. The matter was referred to the Chief Justice of India for placement before a larger bench, and no final ruling was given on the substantive penalty question. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 19 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48039