Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2009 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (9) TMI 566 - HC - Central ExciseDelay in Payment - lapse that after taking credit of amount deposited under TR-6 challan in PLA, debit entry therein not made. Amount shown as credited in PLA only subsequently. Interest also deposited for delay payment of duty. Held that - PLA maintained by dealer for own convenience. No default committed although there was some delay which made up by paying interest. No ground for admission of appeal.
Issues:
Appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order of the Customs Excise and Service tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi regarding duty liability payment and credit entries in the Permanent Ledger Account (PLA). Analysis: The High Court considered an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the Customs Excise and Service tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The Tribunal's finding highlighted that the dealer-respondent consistently paid the monthly duty liability using TR-6 Challan but failed to make corresponding debit entries in the Permanent Ledger Account (PLA). The respondent acknowledged the non-inclusion of Rs. 2,05,707/- deposited via TR-5 Challan in the PLA until a later date. Additionally, they paid interest for delayed duty payment, demonstrating a level of compliance. The PLA was maintained by the dealer for their convenience. The Court noted that despite minor delays, the dealer did not default in duty payment, and the interest paid on time further mitigated any concerns. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for admitting the appeal and dismissed it on merits. The Court's decision to dismiss the appeal on its merits obviated the need for further orders on miscellaneous applications filed alongside the appeal. The judgment emphasized the importance of timely duty payments and proper accounting practices, indicating that despite procedural lapses, the dealer's actions did not amount to a substantive default. The Court's analysis underscored the significance of adherence to regulatory requirements while recognizing efforts to rectify any inadvertent errors promptly.
|