9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1972 - AT - Central ExciseDuty demand - failure to discharge the monthly payment of duty for the months March 2012 to June 2012 - Contravened the provisions of Rule 8 (3A) of Central Excise Rules 2002 - Held that - Gujarat High Court in the case of Indsur Global Ltd Vs Union of India 2014 (12) TMI 585 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT held that Rule 8 (3A) of Central Excise Rules 2002 is unconstitutional. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Violation of Rule 8 (3A) of Central Excise Rules 2002 regarding duty payment. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD involved a case where the appellants were engaged in manufacturing various products falling under Chapter 72 and 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The issue revolved around the appellants' failure to discharge the monthly duty payment for the period from March 2012 to June 2012 within the stipulated due date. The allegation was that the appellants did not pay the duty consignment-wise from PLA by cash during the defaulted period but instead used the CENVAT account, contravening Rule 8 (3A) of the Central Excise Rules 2002. Upon perusal of the records and considering both sides, the Tribunal referred to a judgment by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Indsur Global Ltd Vs Union of India, where it was held that Rule 8 (3A) of the Central Excise Rules 2002 is unconstitutional. In light of this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal filed by the appellant with consequential relief. However, the Tribunal clarified that the Revenue could demand interest for the failure to pay duty on each consignment at the time of goods removal until the appellant settled the outstanding dues in accordance with Rule 8 (3A) of the said Rules 2002. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision was based on the unconstitutionality of Rule 8 (3A) as established by the Gujarat High Court, leading to the allowance of the appellant's appeal while permitting the Revenue to seek interest for the period until the outstanding dues were paid as per the rule. The stay application was also disposed of as part of the judgment.
|
