https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786628 Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, to the extent it barred utilisation of Cenvat credit during the default period, had already been declared unconstitutional, so duty paid through Cenvat credit during that period could not be treated as non-payment of duty. Interest liability for delayed payment nevertheless continued. On that footing, confiscation and penalty under Rule 25 could not survive where the duty stood discharged, while a nominal penalty under Rule 27 could still be imposed for the procedural breach, and a wrong reference to the penal provision did not by itself vitiate the penalty. en-us Fri, 13 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Feb 2026 07:29:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786628 Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, to the extent it barred utilisation of Cenvat credit during the default period, had already been declared unconstitutional, so duty paid through Cenvat credit during that period could not be treated as non-payment of duty. Interest liability for delayed payment nevertheless continued. On that footing, confiscation and penalty under Rule 25 could not survive where the duty stood discharged, while a nominal penalty under Rule 27 could still be imposed for the procedural breach, and a wrong reference to the penal provision did not by itself vitiate the penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786628