2014 (11) TMI 776 - HC - Central Excise

Non discharge of the duty liability for the month of December 2007 to February 2008 - default as per Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules - Bombay High Court admitted the appeal of Revenue against the decision of CESTAT AHMEDABAD 2013 (4) TMI 382 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD on following questions of Law - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CESTAT was justified in holding that Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could not have been invoked and applied by the Revenue and the applicable provision was Rule 27 of the said Rules? Whether the CESTAT was right in placing reliance upon the order passed by the CESTAT in the case of Tejpal Paper Mills Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad reported in 2010 (7) TMI 385 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD and applying it to the facts and circumstances of the present case particularly when the Assessee defaulted in payment of duty as noted in the order of adjudication, but paid the same together with interest belatedly and in terms of the Chart which is referred to in the show cause notice?

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Rule 25 vs. Rule 27
2. Reliance on previous case law by CESTAT

Interpretation of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Rule 25 vs. Rule 27:
The High Court admitted the appeal based on substantial questions of law regarding the interpretation of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The first issue raised was whether the CESTAT was correct in holding that Rule 25 could not have been applied by the Revenue, and instead, Rule 27 was the applicable provision. The Court directed the Registry to summon the original record from the Tribunal for inspection. It was emphasized that the Registry should prepare a complete paper book in compliance with the Rules.

Reliance on previous case law by CESTAT:
The second issue pertained to the reliance placed by CESTAT on a previous case involving Tejpal Paper Mills Limited. The question raised was whether CESTAT was justified in applying the order from the previous case to the present scenario. The Court highlighted the Assessee's default in duty payment, which was later settled with interest as per the show cause notice. The Court directed the Registry to inform the Tribunal about the admission of the appeal and provide a copy of the order for necessary action.

Overall, the judgment focused on the interpretation of Central Excise Rules, specifically Rule 25 and Rule 27, and the application of previous case law by CESTAT in the context of duty payment defaults and subsequent settlements. The High Court's detailed analysis and direction to the Registry underscored the importance of legal compliance and procedural adherence in such matters.