https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51959 Payment of duty after detection of evasion does not, by itself, bar penalty under Rule 173Q or Rule 209A; at most, it may justify leniency in quantifying the penalty, particularly where payment is made after the department has knowledge of the evasion. The plea based on Section 11AC was inapplicable because the dispute concerned Rule 173Q penalty. A separate penalty on an individual partner was not sustainable where the partnership firm had already been penalised for the same misconduct. Penalty on Atul G. Gandhi was therefore set aside, while the penalties on the firm and the other appellant were sustained. en-us Mon, 21 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:11:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51959 Payment of duty after detection of evasion does not, by itself, bar penalty under Rule 173Q or Rule 209A; at most, it may justify leniency in quantifying the penalty, particularly where payment is made after the department has knowledge of the evasion. The plea based on Section 11AC was inapplicable because the dispute concerned Rule 173Q penalty. A separate penalty on an individual partner was not sustainable where the partnership firm had already been penalised for the same misconduct. Penalty on Atul G. Gandhi was therefore set aside, while the penalties on the firm and the other appellant were sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 21 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51959