https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237261 The appellant's default in paying excise duty for April, May, and June 2008 led to subsequent use of CENVAT credit for duty payment in July 2008, contrary to regulations. Despite arguments for a different rule's application, the court upheld Rule 8 (3A) over Rule 8 (3) due to prior defaults. The appellant was held liable to pay duty solely from PLA for July 2008, with restitution in the form of CENVAT credit allowed to rectify the situation. The judgment aimed to balance legal requirements with equitable principles, ensuring a fair outcome for all parties involved. en-us Mon, 26 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Sep 2013 08:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237261 The appellant's default in paying excise duty for April, May, and June 2008 led to subsequent use of CENVAT credit for duty payment in July 2008, contrary to regulations. Despite arguments for a different rule's application, the court upheld Rule 8 (3A) over Rule 8 (3) due to prior defaults. The appellant was held liable to pay duty solely from PLA for July 2008, with restitution in the form of CENVAT credit allowed to rectify the situation. The judgment aimed to balance legal requirements with equitable principles, ensuring a fair outcome for all parties involved. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 26 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237261