9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (1) TMI 744 - AT - Central ExciseInterest and penalty - failed to pay the duty within the period as indicated under the provisions of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 200 - Appellants are not denying the default done by them. It is her submission that before the authorities could point out the error, they had discharged the entire amount of duty liability - It is her submission that this is a fit case for invocation of Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Reference place as the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bhansali Engg. Polymers ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur 2010 -TMI - 78315 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - Therefore, the demand of interest and imposition of penalties are not sustainable - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Violation of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 leading to penalty imposition. Detailed Analysis: The appeal was filed against Order-in-Appeal no.39/2009(H-IV)CE dated 21/10/2009. The appellants, manufacturers of excisable goods, failed to pay duty within the specified period under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for October 2006. The duty was paid in December 2006, beyond the stipulated 30 days plus 5 days. The authorities invoked Rule 8(3A) and issued a show-cause notice for appropriation of the duty amount. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand, imposed a penalty equal to the amount, which was later reduced to Rs.1 lakh by the ld. Commissioner(Appeals). The appellants challenged the penalty imposition in this appeal. The appellant's counsel argued that although the default occurred, the duty was paid before the authorities pointed out the error, suggesting the invocation of Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Reference was made to a Tribunal decision supporting the appellant's position. On the other hand, the JDR contended that as per Rule 8(3A), duty should have been paid within 30 days, whereas the payment was made after 45 days, justifying the penalty imposition. The Commissioner(Appeals) had already reduced the penalty significantly, indicating no need for further interference. The Tribunal analyzed the situation and noted the appellant's violation of Rule 8(3A) by defaulting on duty payment for October 2006. However, the appellants rectified the default in December 2006 without being prompted by the authorities. Referring to a precedent, the Tribunal found that the situation mirrored a previous case where a clerical mistake led to short payment, not deliberate default. Citing Section 11A(2B), the Tribunal concluded that no mens rea was involved, and the appellant's self-detection of the mistake warranted acceptance under the provision. Consequently, the demand for interest and penalties was deemed unsustainable. Following the precedent, the Tribunal set aside the Rs.1 lakh penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, disposing of the appeal accordingly.
|
