https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332970 Penalty under Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was not sustainable where the alleged contravention arose from delayed duty payment and clearance of goods using Cenvat credit contrary to Rule 8(3A), because the Tribunal followed its earlier ruling that the restriction underlying the penalty had been struck down as unconstitutional. Since the duty and interest had already been paid and the appeal was confined to the penalty component, the penalty was set aside. The remaining part of the order was left undisturbed. en-us Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Nov 2016 15:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332970 Penalty under Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was not sustainable where the alleged contravention arose from delayed duty payment and clearance of goods using Cenvat credit contrary to Rule 8(3A), because the Tribunal followed its earlier ruling that the restriction underlying the penalty had been struck down as unconstitutional. Since the duty and interest had already been paid and the appeal was confined to the penalty component, the penalty was set aside. The remaining part of the order was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332970