https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202651 Notification No. 32/2006-C.E. (N.T.) was treated as a preventive and deterrent mechanism, so restriction of the monthly duty payment facility and CENVAT credit utilisation could be sustained on prima facie material showing knowing involvement in wrongful credit availment. The High Court noted that the department had detected duplicate credit, recorded statements, issued notice, and granted hearing, and that payment after detection did not undo the violation for notification purposes. Final adjudication or proof of immediate revenue loss was not required before imposing the restriction, provided the prescribed procedure was followed. The writ petition therefore failed and the restriction order was upheld. en-us Thu, 02 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Apr 2011 18:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202651 Notification No. 32/2006-C.E. (N.T.) was treated as a preventive and deterrent mechanism, so restriction of the monthly duty payment facility and CENVAT credit utilisation could be sustained on prima facie material showing knowing involvement in wrongful credit availment. The High Court noted that the department had detected duplicate credit, recorded statements, issued notice, and granted hearing, and that payment after detection did not undo the violation for notification purposes. Final adjudication or proof of immediate revenue loss was not required before imposing the restriction, provided the prescribed procedure was followed. The writ petition therefore failed and the restriction order was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 02 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202651