2014 (11) TMI 361 - AT - Central Excise

Defaults in payment of duty beyond thirty days - Held that - assessee in such situation need not be required to pay the entire default amount in cash and take the CENVAT credit back into the CENVAT credit account instead they have to pay the interest liability on the default amount. That would be sufficient and once the interest amount is paid, the default can be considered as rectified. Following decision of SOLAR CHEMFERTS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE-I 2011 (6) TMI 640 - CESTAT, MUMBAI - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Default in payment of duty and consequential proceedings under Rule 8 (3A) read with Rule 25 of CE Rules 2002.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE, delivered by Shri B.S.V.MURTHY, addressed the issue of default made by the appellants in payment of duty and the subsequent proceedings under Rule 8 (3A) read with Rule 25 of CE Rules 2002. The appellants, a sick company facing financial difficulties, failed to make regular duty payments, resulting in a default. The Tribunal noted that the liability of the appellant regarding the default was not contested, and the focus was on determining the consequences of the default.

The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving Solar Chemferts Ltd., where it was established that in situations like these, the defaulting party need not pay the entire default amount in cash but could rectify the default by paying the interest liability on the default amount. The learned counsel for the appellant agreed to this approach and expressed willingness to pay the interest amount once a final order was passed. The Tribunal found this request reasonable and decided that once the interest amount was paid, the default could be considered rectified.

Regarding the penalty, the Tribunal held that penalty was applicable under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, with a maximum penalty of &8377; 5,000. As there were two appeals involved in this case, the penalty was set at &8377; 5,000 each, totaling &8377; 10,000. The impugned order was upheld, directing the appellant to only deposit the interest amount on the default as per the decision in the Solar Chemferts Ltd. case. Once this payment was made, the appellant would be considered to have fulfilled their statutory obligation. The penalty of &8377; 10,000 (&8377; 5,000 each for two appeals) was also upheld, and both appeals were decided accordingly.

In conclusion, the judgment provided a balanced approach by allowing the appellant to rectify the default by paying the interest amount and upholding the penalty within the prescribed limits under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The decision was based on established legal precedents and aimed to ensure compliance while considering the financial constraints faced by the appellant.