Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2024 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2024 (11) TMI 343 - AT - Central Excise


Issues:
1. Whether the demand as confirmed for violation of Rule 8(3A) against the Appellant-A1 is sustainable in law?
2. Whether the demand can be raised invoking the extending period and imposition of penalty is justified?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The main issue in the appeals was whether the Appellant-A1, who defaulted in payment of duty, could utilize CENVAT credit for payment of duty as per Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The department alleged non-payment of excise duty and belated filing of ER 1 returns, leading to a demand for Central Excise Duty. The Appellant argued that Rule 8(3A) was declared unconstitutional by various High Courts, rendering the demand unsustainable. The Hon'ble Tribunal and multiple High Courts held that Rule 8(3A) was ultra vires and unconstitutional, allowing the Assessee to utilize CENVAT credit even in case of default.

Issue 2:
Regarding the imposition of penalties and extending the period for demand, the Appellant contended that there was no intention to evade payment of duty, citing financial hardships and reliance on CBEC circulars. The Appellant also argued that the demand was revenue neutral and penalties under the Central Excise Act were not applicable in cases of wrong availment of CENVAT credit. The Tribunal, following precedent judgments, held that the demand based on Rule 8(3A) was unsustainable, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeals with consequential relief.

The judgment emphasized the unconstitutionality of Rule 8(3A) and the Assessee's right to utilize CENVAT credit even in cases of default. The decision was based on various High Court rulings and the settlement of a related appeal at the Supreme Court level. Ultimately, the demand for Central Excise Duty and penalties under Rule 8(3A) were deemed unsustainable, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeals.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates