https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51152 Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was treated as attracted where suppression and misdeclaration led to non-payment of duty through omission of the value of rejected goods from aggregate clearances; the penalty was upheld but reduced, as the provision was treated as authorising a maximum penalty rather than a fixed invariable amount. The Modvat credit question relating to rejected goods was not finally decided because the eligibility issue had already been remanded for verification, so the connected penalty issue also had to be sent back for fresh consideration. The duty demand and liability were otherwise substantially sustained. en-us Thu, 21 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:34:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51152 Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was treated as attracted where suppression and misdeclaration led to non-payment of duty through omission of the value of rejected goods from aggregate clearances; the penalty was upheld but reduced, as the provision was treated as authorising a maximum penalty rather than a fixed invariable amount. The Modvat credit question relating to rejected goods was not finally decided because the eligibility issue had already been remanded for verification, so the connected penalty issue also had to be sent back for fresh consideration. The duty demand and liability were otherwise substantially sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 21 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51152