9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 797 - AT - Central ExciseShort payment of tax - utilisation of CENVAT credit - Filing of revised return - contravention of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 - Held that - there is no infirmity in the impugned order wherein the Commissioner has directed the original authority to accept the revised ER-1 for the month of October 2010 filed by the appellant subject to required scrutiny and seek clarification from the range officer to the extent necessary - Further the Gujarat High Court in the case of Indsur Global Ltd Vs UOI 2014 (12) TMI 585 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT wherein Honon ble Gujarat High Court held Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules 2002 as ultra vires - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues involved: Revenue's appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order allowing the appeal of the assessee for short-paid duty on excisable goods, adjustment of service tax amount towards duty liability, contravention of Central Excise Rules, validity of revised ER-1 filing, jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals), applicability of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules 2002, and the impact of the Gujarat High Court judgment on the present case.
Analysis: The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the assessee, who had short-paid duty on excisable goods. The assessee, a manufacturer of control valves and accessories, also had service tax registration for various services. The dispute arose when the assessee sought to adjust the amount paid towards service tax as payment of duty on excisable goods, which was not permissible under the rules. A show cause notice was issued, demanding the duty amount along with interest and penalty. The Additional Commissioner held that there was no provision for filing a revised return under Rule 12 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2002 and that the assessee had contravened Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules 2002. The Commissioner directed the original authority to accept the revised ER-1 filed by the appellant, leading to the Revenue's appeal. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner had exceeded his jurisdiction by directing the acceptance of the revised ER-1 and argued that the impugned order was not sustainable under Rule 8(3A) and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. However, after considering the submissions, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order. Citing a judgment of the Gujarat High Court declaring Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules 2002 as ultra vires, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal's decision was based on the precedent set by the Gujarat High Court, which rendered Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules 2002 as ultra vires. Therefore, the Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner's order directing the acceptance of the revised ER-1 filed by the appellant. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) decision in favor of the assessee regarding the adjustment of the duty amount and the validity of the revised ER-1 filing for the month in question. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was influenced by the Gujarat High Court judgment, which had a significant impact on the interpretation and application of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules 2002 in the present case. The dismissal of the Revenue's appeal signaled a validation of the Commissioner's order and upheld the assessee's position regarding the adjustment of duty liability and the acceptance of the revised ER-1 filing, highlighting the importance of legal precedents in shaping decisions in tax matters.
|
