9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 441 - AT - Central ExciseDelayed payment of duty - Delay of six days Penalty - Revenue was of the view that the appellant was required to pay duty on each consignment without availing Cenvat credit as required under sub-rule (3A) of Rule 8 for defaulting period - Held that - Following SOLAR CHEMFERTS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE-I 2011 (6) TMI 640 - CESTAT, MUMBAI - default on the part of the assessee would only attract interest and penalty under Rule 27 - once the defaulted amount is paid, the payment made through Cenvat become proper even if it is paid before the date on which defaulted amount is paid, there is no case for demanding the duty paid through Cenvat credit to be paid again through cash/PLA - the appellant would be liable to pay the interest which the lower authorities would quantify - The penalty reduced to Rs. 5,000/- in terms of Rule 27 Decided in favour of Assesssee.
Issues:
1. Duty liability under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules for short payment of duty. 2. Requirement of subsequent clearances to be made by paying duty out of PLA. 3. Confirmation of demand of duty, interest, and penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rule 2002. 4. Applicability of interest and penalty under Rule 27 in case of default by the assessee. 5. Quantum of interest and penalty to be imposed on the appellant. Issue 1: Duty Liability under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules for Short Payment of Duty The appellant, engaged in manufacturing MS Ingots and bars, had a duty liability of Rs. 63,28,450 for August 2008 but short paid Rs. 2,30,000, which was later deposited after a delay of six days. The subsequent clearances were made by the appellant using Cenvat credit. Issue 2: Requirement of Subsequent Clearances to be Made by Paying Duty out of PLA The Revenue contended that due to the default in payment by the assessee, subsequent clearances should have been made by paying duty out of PLA. This led to proceedings against the appellant resulting in the confirmation of demand of duty amounting to Rs. 9,71,192, along with interest and penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rule 2002. Issue 3: Confirmation of Demand of Duty, Interest, and Penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rule 2002 The Additional Commissioner's order confirming the demand of duty, interest, and penalty was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the appellant to file the present appeal challenging the decision. Issue 4: Applicability of Interest and Penalty under Rule 27 in Case of Default by the Assessee Referring to a precedent, the Tribunal held that the default by the assessee would attract interest and penalty under Rule 27, not Rule 25. Consequently, the impugned order confirming the demand of duty was set aside, and the appellant was directed to pay interest, with the penalty reduced to Rs. 5,000 based on a decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. Issue 5: Quantum of Interest and Penalty to be Imposed on the Appellant The Tribunal directed the lower authorities to quantify the interest amount payable by the appellant. Additionally, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 5,000 in accordance with Rule 27 and the Gujarat High Court decision, thereby disposing of the appeal in the mentioned terms. This detailed analysis of the judgment covers all the issues involved, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and the Tribunal's decision in the case.
|
