https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50642 Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was held not to be mandatory in every case of duty demand, because the provision permits discretion and does not require the maximum penalty to be imposed automatically. Penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules was also found unsustainable where clearances were reflected in invoices and records, balances were available, and the lapse was only a procedural non-entry without mala fide intent to evade duty. The assessee was therefore relieved of the penalty, and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Wed, 29 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:17:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50642 Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was held not to be mandatory in every case of duty demand, because the provision permits discretion and does not require the maximum penalty to be imposed automatically. Penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules was also found unsustainable where clearances were reflected in invoices and records, balances were available, and the lapse was only a procedural non-entry without mala fide intent to evade duty. The assessee was therefore relieved of the penalty, and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 29 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50642