https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126484 Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was found unsustainable where excisable goods were removed after debiting Cenvat credit instead of PLA, duty was later paid with interest, and the default did not show intent to evade duty. The Tribunal applied the principle that Rule 25 penalty requires a contravention falling within its specified clauses and involving more than a mere procedural or delayed payment lapse. It accepted that the proper penal provision was Rule 27, which allows only a limited monetary penalty, and the penalty was reduced accordingly. en-us Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Jul 2017 12:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126484 Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was found unsustainable where excisable goods were removed after debiting Cenvat credit instead of PLA, duty was later paid with interest, and the default did not show intent to evade duty. The Tribunal applied the principle that Rule 25 penalty requires a contravention falling within its specified clauses and involving more than a mere procedural or delayed payment lapse. It accepted that the proper penal provision was Rule 27, which allows only a limited monetary penalty, and the penalty was reduced accordingly. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126484