9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 11 - HC - Central ExciseMonetary limit involved in appeal - maintainability of appeal - Held that - Material on record discloses that apart from duty and interest, a sum of ₹ 9 lakhs has been ordered to be paid towards redemption penalty. A sum of ₹ 2,23,605/- (including cess) has been ordered as penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules and ₹ 5,000/- under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, for the delayed payment of Central Excise duty - Penalty imposed in the case on hand, is within the monetary limit - In the light of the policy decision, there is no need for adjudication of the substantial question of law raised in the instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal - appeal disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to discharge of duty through CENVAT Credit as a valid payment of duty. Analysis: The judgment pertains to the challenge against the discharge of duty by the assessee through CENVAT Credit as a valid payment of duty. The issue revolves around the interpretation of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which states that duty should be paid only in Account Current (PLA) if the assessee defaults in payment of duty beyond the prescribed time limit. The material on record reveals that the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax & Customs passed orders confiscating goods, imposing fines, confirming demands, appropriating amounts paid through PLA account and TR.6 challan, levying interest for delayed payment, and imposing penalties for contravention of rules. The respondent, Sreerama Scaffoldings Pvt Ltd, filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Coimbatore, which was allowed based on judgments of other High Courts striking down Rule 8(3A). The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax then appealed to CESTAT, Chennai, which dismissed the appeal citing the striking down of the rule by the Madras High Court in a previous case. The CESTAT order was challenged in a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, where both parties agreed that duty and interest levied had been paid and that the judgments of other High Courts had been stayed. The respondent's counsel submitted that the levy of duty and interest paid would not be contested. Apart from duty and interest, a redemption penalty of ?9 lakhs, a penalty under Rule 25 of ?2,23,605 (including cess), and a penalty under Rule 27 of ?5,000 for delayed payment were ordered. The respondent's counsel argued that in light of the government's monetary policy, the substantial legal questions raised need not be adjudged and should be left open. An instruction from the Ministry of Finance regarding monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department before CESTAT was also considered, leading to the decision that the penalty imposed in the case fell within the monetary limit, and hence, there was no need to adjudicate the substantial legal question raised in the appeal. In conclusion, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was disposed of without costs, considering the penalty imposed fell within the monetary limit set by the Ministry of Finance, and the substantial legal questions were left open for adjudication in appropriate cases.
|
