https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125370 Prior to insertion of Rule 8(3A), duty could validly be discharged from Modvat/Cenvat credit even during forfeiture of the fortnightly payment facility, so the demand based on prohibition of credit utilisation was unsustainable. Delayed deposit of duty nevertheless attracted interest because the Revenue was deprived of timely payment, even though the duty had been assessed. Penalty on the company was maintained at the reduced level, but personal penalties on the Managing Director and Excise clerk were set aside for lack of material showing culpability or intent to evade duty. en-us Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:40:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125370 Prior to insertion of Rule 8(3A), duty could validly be discharged from Modvat/Cenvat credit even during forfeiture of the fortnightly payment facility, so the demand based on prohibition of credit utilisation was unsustainable. Delayed deposit of duty nevertheless attracted interest because the Revenue was deprived of timely payment, even though the duty had been assessed. Penalty on the company was maintained at the reduced level, but personal penalties on the Managing Director and Excise clerk were set aside for lack of material showing culpability or intent to evade duty. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125370