2014 (5) TMI 980 - AT - Central Excise

Default in payment of duty - whether duty amounting to Rs. 39,76,931/- has been rightly confirmed by the appellant for default in payment of duty under Rule 8 (3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. - Held that - The detailed arguments made by both sides need deeper consideration which can be done at the time of final hearing only. For the purpose of stay, duty payment of Rs. 75,31,370/- and interest payment of Rs. 3,33,764/- is considered sufficient for hearing and listing this appeal. Accordingly, it is ordered that there will be stay on recovery of the balance amounts involved till the disposal of this appeal - Conditional stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay application filed by the appellant for staying the operation of OIO No. 74/Commissioner/2013 dated 28.06.2013/ 05.07.2013.
2. Confirmation of a demand of Rs. 1,39,76,931/- along with interest.
3. Imposition of a penalty of Rs. 15,00,000/- under Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
4. Whether duty amounting to Rs. 39,76,931/- has been rightly confirmed for default in payment of duty under Rule 8 (3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a stay application regarding the demand confirmation and penalty imposed by the Commissioner. The issue revolved around the correctness of the duty amount confirmed for default in payment under Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. The appellant's advocate argued that the default was rectified by paying Rs. 75,31,370/- in cash and Rs. 3,33,764/- as interest, with the remaining Rs. 64,45,561/- paid through CENVAT Credit. Several case laws were cited to support the argument that duty was correctly discharged, including Noble Drugs Limited vs. CCE, Nasik and F.S. Engineers vs. CCE, Ahmedabad.

3. The Revenue's representative contended that Rule 8(3A) mandated the entire duty to be paid in cash, including transaction-wise clearances. Case laws such as CCE vs. Harish Silk Industries and Manjunatha Industries vs. CCE, Bangalore were relied upon to support this position.

4. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted conflicting views on the issue of default in duty payment under Rule 8(3A) among different CESTAT benches. Given the complexity of arguments, a detailed consideration was deferred to the final hearing. However, for the stay application, the Tribunal deemed the payment of Rs. 75,31,370/- towards duty and Rs. 3,33,764/- as interest sufficient, ordering a stay on the recovery of the remaining amounts pending the appeal's disposal.