https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48053 The HC of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision that penalties under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, require proof of intent to evade duty payment. The Tribunal found the respondent-company's delay in duty payment was due to circumstances beyond its control, specifically BIFR proceedings, and not an intention to evade. The judgment underscores the necessity of proving intent for penalty imposition, aligning with precedents from the Punjab and Haryana HC and the Allahabad HC. en-us Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Jan 2024 11:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48053 The HC of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision that penalties under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, require proof of intent to evade duty payment. The Tribunal found the respondent-company's delay in duty payment was due to circumstances beyond its control, specifically BIFR proceedings, and not an intention to evade. The judgment underscores the necessity of proving intent for penalty imposition, aligning with precedents from the Punjab and Haryana HC and the Allahabad HC. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48053