9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 1450 - AT - Central ExcisePre-deposit - whether mandatory deposit of seven and half percent as per Section 35F (i) of the CEA 1944 is required to be paid in cash or the same can be paid from CENVAT Credit Account maintained by the appellants - Held that - deposit u/s 35F (i) cannot be made from CENVAT Credit Account is not the correct appreciation of law so long as the CENVAT Credit is permissible for utilisation as per Rule 3(4) of the CCR 2004 - appeal is allowed by way of remand to the First Appellate Authority with directions to decide the appeal on merits without insisting on any further pre-deposit - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding mandatory deposit for filing an appeal. Analysis: The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Appeal dated 15.02.2016, which stated that the mandatory deposit of duty required under Section 35F (i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 had been paid from the CENVAT Account. The appellant argued that there is no specific bar in the amended Section 35F that the deposit must be made in cash only and not from the CENVAT Credit Account. The Revenue, represented by the DC(A.R), supported the findings of the First Appellate Authority. The main issue in the case was whether the mandatory deposit of duty, as per Section 35F (i) of the Central Excise Act 1944, could be paid from the CENVAT Credit Account or if it had to be made in cash. The Tribunal observed that the relevant section did not explicitly state that the deposit had to be in cash. The First Appellate Authority referred to Rule 3 (4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which allows for the utilization of CENVAT Credit in certain situations. If there is a dispute regarding the admissibility of CENVAT Credit, and it is found to be inadmissible, the ultimate action would be to reverse the credit taken. Similarly, if CENVAT Credit is permissible for paying duty, it can be debited from the CENVAT Account. The Tribunal noted that payments made from the CENVAT Credit Account are considered as due payments for the purpose of deposit under Section 35F. The First Appellate Authority could have a different view if the deposit was related to personal penalty or interest payment. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the First Appellate Authority's view that the deposit under Section 35F (i) cannot be made from the CENVAT Credit Account was incorrect as long as the CENVAT Credit is permissible for utilization as per Rule 3(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the First Appellate Authority with directions to decide the appeal on merits without requiring any further pre-deposit. Both parties were given the opportunity to present evidence, and all issues were kept open.
|
