https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237023 Conflicting coordinate bench views on Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 prompted referral to a Larger Bench. The Tribunal noted disagreement on whether default includes partial payment of duty and whether penalty for such default lies under Rule 25 or Rule 27. It found that reliance on Rule 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was not decisive because the earlier regime differed materially from the provision in issue. As the interpretative conflict could not be resolved by the existing bench strength, the matter was referred for authoritative settlement by a Larger Bench. en-us Mon, 28 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Sep 2013 09:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237023 Conflicting coordinate bench views on Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 prompted referral to a Larger Bench. The Tribunal noted disagreement on whether default includes partial payment of duty and whether penalty for such default lies under Rule 25 or Rule 27. It found that reliance on Rule 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was not decisive because the earlier regime differed materially from the provision in issue. As the interpretative conflict could not be resolved by the existing bench strength, the matter was referred for authoritative settlement by a Larger Bench. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 28 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237023