9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 483 - AT - Central ExciseDefault in the payment of Central Excise Duty - applicability of Rule 8 (3A) of the Central Excise Rule 2002 - citing Rule 8(3A) the SCN was issued proposing to demand payment of Central Excise duty in cash which was already debited from the Cenvat Credit account - HELD THAT - The provisions of Rule 8 (3A) of the Central Excise Rules 2002 based on which the demand for duty has been raised by the Department has been struck down by the various High Courts as ultra vires. Reliance can be placed in the case of M/S SANDLEY INDUSTRIES VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2015 (10) TMI 2455 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT and it can be held that there is no bar in making use of the accumulated Cenvat Credit for making payment of Central Excise Duty even during default period - also the Jurisdictional High Court at Calcutta in the case of M/S. GOYAL MG GASES PVT. LTD VERSUS UNION OF INDIA OTHERS 2017 (8) TMI 1515 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT has followed the decision of the Gujarat High Court in INDSUR GLOBAL LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2 2014 (12) TMI 585 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT and has held the portion of rule 8 (3A) as ultra vires. There is no bar in making use of the accumulated Cenvat Credit in making payment of Central Excise Duty even during the default period - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Failure to pay duty involving goods removed within due dates as specified in Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Applicability of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. Validity of demand for duty payment in cash despite debiting Cenvat Credit account. 4. Challenge to the order by the Revenue regarding the demand for Central Excise Duty. Analysis: 1. The appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, failed to pay duty for goods removed within due dates as per Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty. Another show cause notice was issued for a subsequent duty demand, which was also confirmed. The Revenue contended that duty had to be paid in cash without using accumulated Cenvat Credit. The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the orders, leading to the present appeal. 2. The issue revolved around the applicability of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Show Cause Notice proposed demanding duty payment in cash, already debited from the Cenvat Credit account. The Order-in-Original confirmed the duty demand, interest, and imposed a penalty equal to the demand. The Tribunal noted that various High Courts had struck down Rule 8(3A) as ultra vires, citing multiple cases as precedents. 3. The Tribunal observed that based on the decisions of the High Courts, including the Jurisdictional High Court at Calcutta, there was no restriction on using accumulated Cenvat Credit for paying Central Excise Duty even during a default period. The Tribunal referenced specific cases where the rule was declared ultra vires, leading to the conclusion that the appellant could utilize the Cenvat Credit for duty payment during the default period. 4. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the Impugned Order, allowing the appeal by following the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court. The ruling established that there was no prohibition on using accumulated Cenvat Credit for Central Excise Duty payment during a default period. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to legal precedents set by High Courts in similar matters, ensuring consistency and upholding the rule of law.
|
