2018 (8) TMI 1668 - AT - Central Excise

Non-payment of Interest for duty paid belatedly - Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - demand with penalty - Held that - The Tribunal in S.V.M. Auto Products Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III 2016 (10) TMI 1223 - CESTAT CHENNAI had remanded a similar matter to the adjudicating authority for denovo consideration after decision of Apex Court in the case of M/s. Indsur Global Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2014 (12) TMI 585 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - the matter remanded to the adjudicating authority with direction for denovo consideration based on the outcome of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Duty liability for default period, entitlement to use CENVAT credit, remand for denovo consideration based on Supreme Court decision

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI, the issue revolved around the duty liability of the appellants for the default period. The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of PET performs and PET bottles, paid the duty liability belatedly for the month of December 2011, after a delay of 47 days, along with interest. The duty liability for clearances made during the default period amounted to &8377; 14,38,915, which was paid by cash on insistence, without the interest thereof for the belated duty payment. A show cause notice was issued, leading to the confirmation of a demand of &8377; 8,61,064 and a penalty of &8377; 5,000 by the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals), respectively.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel highlighted the issue of whether the appellant could use CENVAT credit while discharging the duty liability for the default period, citing a case pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal, considering similar cases, remanded the matter back to the original authority for denovo consideration based on the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision in related cases. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for denovo consideration, aligning with the Tribunal's previous decision on a similar matter and awaiting the Supreme Court's decision.

The Tribunal's decision was influenced by a prior order where a similar matter was remanded for denovo consideration based on the pending Supreme Court decision. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for denovo consideration, contingent upon the outcome of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the related cases. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of aligning the decision with the anticipated Supreme Court ruling.