https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234355 During the forfeiture period under Rule 173G(1)(e), duty had to be paid only by debit to the account current or PLA, and utilisation of Cenvat credit was not permitted; non-compliance exposed the goods to treatment as cleared without payment of duty, with duty and interest payable. The conduct also attracted penalty under the Central Excise Rules, but the penalty quantum was not required to equal the full duty demand in every case. Because the transactions were properly recorded, a reduced penalty was considered sufficient, with the duty and interest demand sustained and the penalty substantially curtailed. en-us Fri, 10 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234355 During the forfeiture period under Rule 173G(1)(e), duty had to be paid only by debit to the account current or PLA, and utilisation of Cenvat credit was not permitted; non-compliance exposed the goods to treatment as cleared without payment of duty, with duty and interest payable. The conduct also attracted penalty under the Central Excise Rules, but the penalty quantum was not required to equal the full duty demand in every case. Because the transactions were properly recorded, a reduced penalty was considered sufficient, with the duty and interest demand sustained and the penalty substantially curtailed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 10 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234355