https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183229 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the penalty on the Director, restricting the penalty amount under Rule 27, and rejecting the duty demand confirmation due to compliance with cenvat credit utilization. The appellant's discharge of duty liability for each consignment by debiting the cenvat account was deemed compliant with Rule 8 (3A), leading to the dismissal of the duty demand. The Tribunal also found that the penalty under Rule 25 was not applicable, as there was no evidence of suppression, wilful misstatement, or contravention to evade payment. en-us Wed, 10 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Oct 2016 10:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183229 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the penalty on the Director, restricting the penalty amount under Rule 27, and rejecting the duty demand confirmation due to compliance with cenvat credit utilization. The appellant's discharge of duty liability for each consignment by debiting the cenvat account was deemed compliant with Rule 8 (3A), leading to the dismissal of the duty demand. The Tribunal also found that the penalty under Rule 25 was not applicable, as there was no evidence of suppression, wilful misstatement, or contravention to evade payment. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 10 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183229