https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32426 Rule 12CC and Notification No. 32/2006-C.E. (N.T.) were upheld as a targeted anti-evasion measure because the classification applied to a limited class of defaulters and had a rational nexus with preventing duty evasion and default. The hearing requirement under paragraph 4 was treated as substantive, requiring meaningful notice of the allegations and material so an effective representation could be made, and a bare formality was insufficient. On the stated facts, the procedural defect was recognised in principle, but the order withdrawing monthly payment facility and restricting CENVAT credit was not quashed and no consequential relief was granted. en-us Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32426 Rule 12CC and Notification No. 32/2006-C.E. (N.T.) were upheld as a targeted anti-evasion measure because the classification applied to a limited class of defaulters and had a rational nexus with preventing duty evasion and default. The hearing requirement under paragraph 4 was treated as substantive, requiring meaningful notice of the allegations and material so an effective representation could be made, and a bare formality was insufficient. On the stated facts, the procedural defect was recognised in principle, but the order withdrawing monthly payment facility and restricting CENVAT credit was not quashed and no consequential relief was granted. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32426