https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344868 The appellate authority set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal. The appellant's contention that Cenvat credit utilization during the default period should be permissible was rejected, as the Supreme Court had stayed the relevant High Court judgment. The dispute over the discount given by the appellant was resolved in favor of the appellant, with the correct duty liability being determined as Rs. 7,84,847, which was paid by 9th May, 2008. The authority found no justification for demanding cash payment against Cenvat credit utilization during the default period, leading to the appeal being allowed. en-us Fri, 26 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Jun 2017 07:10:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344868 The appellate authority set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal. The appellant's contention that Cenvat credit utilization during the default period should be permissible was rejected, as the Supreme Court had stayed the relevant High Court judgment. The dispute over the discount given by the appellant was resolved in favor of the appellant, with the correct duty liability being determined as Rs. 7,84,847, which was paid by 9th May, 2008. The authority found no justification for demanding cash payment against Cenvat credit utilization during the default period, leading to the appeal being allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 26 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344868