https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125832 Repeated defaults in monthly excise duty payment under Rule 8(3A) did not justify mechanically aggregating forfeiture periods. The provision prescribed forfeiture of the facility to pay duty in monthly instalments for two months, or until payment of duty with interest, whichever was later, and contained no language requiring cumulative operation for multiple defaults later dealt with in a common order. Because the duty and interest had been paid, albeit belatedly, the appellate restriction of the forfeiture consequence to two months was upheld, and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:28:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125832 Repeated defaults in monthly excise duty payment under Rule 8(3A) did not justify mechanically aggregating forfeiture periods. The provision prescribed forfeiture of the facility to pay duty in monthly instalments for two months, or until payment of duty with interest, whichever was later, and contained no language requiring cumulative operation for multiple defaults later dealt with in a common order. Because the duty and interest had been paid, albeit belatedly, the appellate restriction of the forfeiture consequence to two months was upheld, and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125832