https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52628 Duty already paid on clearances later covered by cancellation of invoice and fresh documentation under the prescribed procedure, with credit re-adjusted in the personal ledger, was treated as not supporting a further demand where there was no clandestine removal or short payment. The demand under Rule 9(2) read with Section 11A was therefore unsustainable. Penalty under Rule 173Q likewise required evidence of intent to evade duty; a mere procedural lapse in maintaining the ledger and making adjustments did not justify the major penalty. In the stated reasoning, only the minimum penalty was considered appropriate. en-us Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:53:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52628 Duty already paid on clearances later covered by cancellation of invoice and fresh documentation under the prescribed procedure, with credit re-adjusted in the personal ledger, was treated as not supporting a further demand where there was no clandestine removal or short payment. The demand under Rule 9(2) read with Section 11A was therefore unsustainable. Penalty under Rule 173Q likewise required evidence of intent to evade duty; a mere procedural lapse in maintaining the ledger and making adjustments did not justify the major penalty. In the stated reasoning, only the minimum penalty was considered appropriate. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52628