https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178527 Before insertion of the non-obstante clause in Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, suspension of the instalment payment facility under the earlier Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not bar an assessee from discharging duty by valid debit of accumulated Cenvat/Modvat credit. Where there was no allegation of wrongful availment or irregular utilisation of credit, duty could be paid either through PLA or by credit debit, and a demand insisting on cash payment alone was not sustainable. The stated legal position was applied in line with the jurisdictional High Court and Larger Bench ruling, leading to relief from the disputed demand. en-us Tue, 08 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Feb 2016 11:40:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178527 Before insertion of the non-obstante clause in Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, suspension of the instalment payment facility under the earlier Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not bar an assessee from discharging duty by valid debit of accumulated Cenvat/Modvat credit. Where there was no allegation of wrongful availment or irregular utilisation of credit, duty could be paid either through PLA or by credit debit, and a demand insisting on cash payment alone was not sustainable. The stated legal position was applied in line with the jurisdictional High Court and Larger Bench ruling, leading to relief from the disputed demand. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 08 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178527