https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370563 The appeal was disposed of with the modified penalty amount, reducing the penalty imposed on the appellant from &8377; 50,000 to &8377; 25,000 for contravening Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Despite conflicting interpretations by various courts and the stay by the Supreme Court on a specific judgment, the Member (Technical) found the appellant liable for penalties under Rule 25 but deemed it fair to reduce the penalty considering the circumstances. en-us Tue, 06 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Nov 2018 07:45:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370563 The appeal was disposed of with the modified penalty amount, reducing the penalty imposed on the appellant from &8377; 50,000 to &8377; 25,000 for contravening Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Despite conflicting interpretations by various courts and the stay by the Supreme Court on a specific judgment, the Member (Technical) found the appellant liable for penalties under Rule 25 but deemed it fair to reduce the penalty considering the circumstances. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 06 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370563