https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77332 Clearing excisable goods during the period of delayed duty payment, without paying duty in cash as required by Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, constituted a contravention attracting penalty under Rule 25. However, in the absence of material showing fraud, suppression or similar aggravated conduct, the harsher penalty provision was not justified. The penalty was therefore sustainable in principle, but its quantum had to be reduced in line with the nature of the default and the short delay in payment, and the assessee succeeded to that extent. en-us Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77332 Clearing excisable goods during the period of delayed duty payment, without paying duty in cash as required by Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, constituted a contravention attracting penalty under Rule 25. However, in the absence of material showing fraud, suppression or similar aggravated conduct, the harsher penalty provision was not justified. The penalty was therefore sustainable in principle, but its quantum had to be reduced in line with the nature of the default and the short delay in payment, and the assessee succeeded to that extent. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77332