9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1830 - AT - Central ExciseDuty demand - CENVAT Credit - Demand of interest - Held that - appellants were discharging duty on monthly basis under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. There was a delay in discharging of duty on monthly basis. The appellant paid duty partly from CENVAT account during the defaulted period. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority disallowed the utilization of the amount from CENVAT account during the period from 05.07.2010 to 29.09.2010 in terms of provisions of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and confirmed the demand of duty along with interest and imposed penalty for not paying the amount by cash from PLA. - In view of the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court 2014 (12) TMI 585 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , we find that the impugned order is not sustainable. The impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Disallowance of utilization of CENVAT account amount during a specific period under Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Validity of the provision of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. 3. Liability to pay interest for not paying duty for each consignment at the time of goods removal. Analysis: 1. The case involved a dispute regarding the disallowance of the utilization of the CENVAT account amount during a specific period under Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Adjudicating Authority had disallowed the utilization of the amount from the CENVAT account during the defaulted period, leading to the confirmation of the demand of duty along with interest and imposition of a penalty for not paying the amount by cash from PLA. However, the Tribunal noted the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in a similar case, where it was held that the portion "without utilizing the CENVAT Credit" of sub-rule (3A) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, shall be rendered invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal found the impugned order unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. 2. The validity of the provision of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was a crucial issue in this case. The Tribunal, after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, declared the condition contained in sub-rule (3A) of Rule 8 for payment of duty without utilizing the CENVAT Credit till the outstanding amount is paid as unconstitutional. By relying on the judgment of the High Court, the Tribunal found that the impugned order disallowing the utilization of the CENVAT account amount was not sustainable and consequently set it aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. 3. Another significant issue raised was the liability to pay interest for not paying duty for each consignment at the time of goods removal. The ld.Authorised Representative for the Revenue contended that duty was not paid for each consignment at the time of goods removal, making the appellants liable to pay interest. The Tribunal opined that the appellant should pay excise duty for each consignment at the time of goods removal until the outstanding amount, including interest, is paid. The Revenue was granted the liberty to demand interest, if applicable, in accordance with the law. This issue clarified the ongoing liability of the appellant regarding the payment of duty and interest for each consignment until the outstanding amount is settled.
|
