https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120075 Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 required payment equal to the duty on inputs or capital goods removed as such, but it did not fix an immediate payment date on clearance. Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 governed the timing of duty payment and allowed monthly discharge by the 5th of the following month, so the deletion in Notification No. 13/2003-C.E. (N.T.) did not create a separate instant liability. Because interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 arises only from the date duty ought to have been paid, interest could not be demanded from the date of removal, and the connected penalty also failed. en-us Wed, 23 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:59:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120075 Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 required payment equal to the duty on inputs or capital goods removed as such, but it did not fix an immediate payment date on clearance. Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 governed the timing of duty payment and allowed monthly discharge by the 5th of the following month, so the deletion in Notification No. 13/2003-C.E. (N.T.) did not create a separate instant liability. Because interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 arises only from the date duty ought to have been paid, interest could not be demanded from the date of removal, and the connected penalty also failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 23 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120075