9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 222 - AT - Central ExciseWaiver of pre deposit - Utilization of CENVAT Credit - failure to discharge full duty liability due to clerical mistake - Payment to be made through PLA Account - Held that - One of the grounds raised in the appeal was that there was no intention on the part of the appellant not to discharge full duty liability for April 2012 inasmuch as while the short fall in payment was to the extent of ₹ 2 Lakh, at that time they had cenvat credit balance amount of ₹ 3.3 Lakh and though this point had been raised in the grounds of appeal but the same had not been considered while this fact is clear from the Commissioner s observation in para 19.2 of the impugned order and for this reason only the Commissioner had imposed a lower penalty of ₹ 2 Lakh. - keeping in view the judgment of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Indusar Global Ltd. vs. UOI (2014 (12) TMI 585 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT), the appellant have prima facie case in their favour. - Stay granted.
Issues Involved:
1. Shortfall in the payment of duty for April 2012 and subsequent payment with interest. 2. Applicability of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 4. Modification of the stay order dated 26.11.2014 based on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Indusar Global Ltd. vs. UOI. 5. Constitutionality of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Detailed Analysis: 1. Shortfall in the Payment of Duty for April 2012 and Subsequent Payment with Interest: The appellant had a duty liability of Rs. 10,10,590/- for April 2012, which was to be paid by 05.05.2012. They paid Rs. 7,10,590/- through the Cenvat credit account and Rs. 1 lakh through PLA, resulting in a shortfall of Rs. 2 lakh. This shortfall was due to a clerical mistake, as they had a Cenvat credit balance of Rs. 3,30,000/- at that time. The appellant realized the mistake and paid the balance amount of Rs. 2 lakh with interest on 19.12.2012. This delay was noticed by the audit in July 2013. 2. Applicability of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002: According to Rule 8(3A), if there is a delay in the discharge of duty liability beyond one month from the due date, the assessee must pay duty consignment-wise without availing of the Cenvat credit. The forfeiture period started on 06.06.2012 and continued until 18.12.2012. The Department contended that during this period, the duty for all clearances should have been paid through PLA without utilizing the Cenvat credit. 3. Imposition of Penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002: The Department demanded the payment of Rs. 85,35,409/- through PLA and sought a penalty under Section 11AC. The Commissioner adjudicated the matter, confirming the duty demand of Rs. 60,35,409/- with interest under Section 11AA and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakh under Rule 26. The Commissioner noted that the failure to discharge the duty was due to a clerical mistake and not intentional suppression or evasion. 4. Modification of the Stay Order Dated 26.11.2014: The appellant filed for modification of the stay order based on the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Indusar Global Ltd. vs. UOI, which declared the condition of payment of duty without utilizing the Cenvat credit during the forfeiture period under Rule 8(3A) as unconstitutional. The Tribunal had initially directed the appellant to pay the entire duty demand in cash within 12 weeks, allowing them to make a reverse entry in their Cenvat credit account upon payment. 5. Constitutionality of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002: The Gujarat High Court in Indusar Global Ltd. vs. UOI held that the provision in Rule 8(3A) requiring payment of duty without utilizing the Cenvat credit during a default period beyond one month from the due date is unconstitutional. This judgment was binding on the Tribunal, leading to the conclusion that the stay order dated 26.11.2014 suffered from an error apparent on record and required rectification. Conclusion: The Tribunal, considering the judgment of the Gujarat High Court and the principle of per incuriam, concluded that the stay order dated 26.11.2014 needed modification. The appellant had a prima facie case in their favor, and the pre-deposit of the duty demand, interest, and penalty was waived for the hearing of the appeal. The recovery thereof was stayed, and the matter was listed for final disposal on 21.04.2015. The miscellaneous applications for modification of the stay order were allowed.
|
