https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262487 During the period when the instalment facility for excise duty payment was forfeited under Rule 173G(1)(e), the Court distinguished between the timing of payment and the mode of payment. It noted that the rule withdrew only the fortnightly payment facility and required duty to be paid on each consignment, but did not expressly prohibit discharge through valid Cenvat credit, which Rule 173G(1)(b) recognised alongside payment through the account current. The subsequent introduction of Rule 8(3A) with an express non obstante clause was treated as a later legislative change, not part of the unamended regime. Cenvat credit remained a permissible mode of payment, and interest could not be levied on the amount so adjusted as delayed duty. en-us Thu, 06 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Jun 2016 14:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262487 During the period when the instalment facility for excise duty payment was forfeited under Rule 173G(1)(e), the Court distinguished between the timing of payment and the mode of payment. It noted that the rule withdrew only the fortnightly payment facility and required duty to be paid on each consignment, but did not expressly prohibit discharge through valid Cenvat credit, which Rule 173G(1)(b) recognised alongside payment through the account current. The subsequent introduction of Rule 8(3A) with an express non obstante clause was treated as a later legislative change, not part of the unamended regime. Cenvat credit remained a permissible mode of payment, and interest could not be levied on the amount so adjusted as delayed duty. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 06 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262487