https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347533 The Tribunal held that the appellant was not liable for penalty under Rule 25(1)(a) of the Central Excise Rules 2002. The appeal was allowed based on the analysis of relevant legal provisions and judgments, including the decision in Indsur Global Ltd. that struck down sub-rule (3A) of Rule 8 as unconstitutional. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant had paid the duty and interest, and the utilization of Cenvat credit was permitted. Since the conditions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act were not met, including fraud or wilful misstatement, the penalty under Rule 25 could not be imposed. en-us Thu, 17 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Sep 2017 16:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347533 The Tribunal held that the appellant was not liable for penalty under Rule 25(1)(a) of the Central Excise Rules 2002. The appeal was allowed based on the analysis of relevant legal provisions and judgments, including the decision in Indsur Global Ltd. that struck down sub-rule (3A) of Rule 8 as unconstitutional. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant had paid the duty and interest, and the utilization of Cenvat credit was permitted. Since the conditions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act were not met, including fraud or wilful misstatement, the penalty under Rule 25 could not be imposed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 17 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347533