https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367082 The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 25 due to the absence of a duty demand in the notice. However, the penalty under Rule 15 was upheld but restricted to the maximum amount permissible during the relevant period. The interest imposed under Rule 14 was maintained. The appellant's violation of Rule 3(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was addressed by carefully analyzing penalty impositions and the absence of a duty demand in the show cause notice, ensuring a balanced approach to penalties and interest in compliance with legal provisions. en-us Wed, 08 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Sep 2018 07:37:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367082 The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 25 due to the absence of a duty demand in the notice. However, the penalty under Rule 15 was upheld but restricted to the maximum amount permissible during the relevant period. The interest imposed under Rule 14 was maintained. The appellant's violation of Rule 3(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was addressed by carefully analyzing penalty impositions and the absence of a duty demand in the show cause notice, ensuring a balanced approach to penalties and interest in compliance with legal provisions. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 08 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367082