https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363531 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants by setting aside the demand of duty and interest under Rule 8 (3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, citing precedents and holding the demand unsustainable. Penalties under Rule 25 were deemed inapplicable, limiting penalties to Rs. 5,000 under Rule 27 due to financial constraints. The Tribunal emphasized that stay orders do not nullify original judgments and aligned with High Court decisions, ultimately providing consequential relief by partly allowing some appeals and dismissing others, along with disposing of cross objections and delay condonation applications. en-us Fri, 06 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Jul 2018 07:47:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363531 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants by setting aside the demand of duty and interest under Rule 8 (3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, citing precedents and holding the demand unsustainable. Penalties under Rule 25 were deemed inapplicable, limiting penalties to Rs. 5,000 under Rule 27 due to financial constraints. The Tribunal emphasized that stay orders do not nullify original judgments and aligned with High Court decisions, ultimately providing consequential relief by partly allowing some appeals and dismissing others, along with disposing of cross objections and delay condonation applications. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 06 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363531