2024 (7) TMI 681 - AT - Central Excise

Violation of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - default in payment of quarterly duty liability - HELD THAT - This Bench in the case of CHERAN CEMENTS LTD. AND OTHERS VERSUS CCE TRICHY AND CCE COIMBATORE 2015 (8) TMI 99 - CESTAT CHENNAI has held that 'demand of duty under Rule 8(3A) is unsustainable as the said Rule has been struck down by the Hon'ble High Court and the demand of duty and penalty imposed in the impugned orders is liable to be set aside.' There are no merit in the demands confirmed in the impugned orders and hence, the impugned order to this extent cannot sustain - appeal of Revenue dismissed.

Issues:
1. Non-payment of duty liability by the Appellant for a specific quarter.
2. Applicability and compliance with Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
3. Legality of demands, interest, penalties, and confiscation imposed by the Respondent.
4. Interpretation of judicial decisions regarding Rule 8(3A).
5. Sustainability of demands confirmed against the taxpayer.
6. Justification of deleting the demand confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the Appellant, a small-scale manufacturer of medicaments, who defaulted in paying their quarterly duty liability for a specific period. The Appellant belatedly settled the dues along with interest, leading to disputes regarding compliance with Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

2. Rule 8(3A) stipulated that duty defaulters must pay dues within a grace period, failing which subsequent clearances were to be discharged through Account Current (PLA) cash consignment-wise. Non-compliance with this rule resulted in clearances being deemed non-duty paid, leading to recovery of duty, interest, and penalties, as observed in the case at hand.

3. The Respondent sought to demand central excise duties, interest, penalties, and confiscation of goods for the period of non-compliance. The demands were confirmed through Orders-in-Original, imposing penalties under Section 11AC of the Act/Rule 25 of the Rules, and confiscating goods under Rule 25 with redemption fines.

4. The Appellant argued that judicial decisions by the Gujarat High Court and Madras High Court had held Rule 8(3A) to be ultra vires, rendering the demands unsustainable. The Tribunal, following these precedents, deemed the demand under Rule 8(3A) as unconstitutional and set aside the demands and penalties imposed.

5. The Tribunal considered the sustainability of demands confirmed against the taxpayer and concluded that the demands based on Rule 8(3A) were unsustainable, following the precedent set by higher judicial forums. Consequently, the Appellant's appeals were allowed with consequential benefits.

6. Regarding the Appellate Authority's decision to delete the demand confirmed by the lower authority, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeals and dismissed them. The final judgment allowed the Appellant's appeals with consequential benefits and dismissed the Revenue's appeals, in line with the legal analysis and precedents cited.

← Previous Next →