https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435824 The Tribunal set aside the demand of duty and penalties imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, due to the invalidity of Rule 8(3A). The penalty under Rule 25 was reduced considering mitigating factors, and the Appellants' argument against penalty imposition due to financial constraints was rejected. The Tribunal emphasized the utilization of Cenvat Credit for duty payment based on the legal invalidity of Rule 8(3A), ultimately leading to the relief granted to the Appellants by setting aside the demand of duty and penalties. en-us Wed, 22 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Mar 2023 07:59:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435824 The Tribunal set aside the demand of duty and penalties imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, due to the invalidity of Rule 8(3A). The penalty under Rule 25 was reduced considering mitigating factors, and the Appellants' argument against penalty imposition due to financial constraints was rejected. The Tribunal emphasized the utilization of Cenvat Credit for duty payment based on the legal invalidity of Rule 8(3A), ultimately leading to the relief granted to the Appellants by setting aside the demand of duty and penalties. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 22 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435824