9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2006. This error in taking credit consequent to short payment of education cess was detected by the appellant themselves in September, 2006 and accordingly, they voluntarily debited the short paid amount of Rs. 34,498/- along with interest on 3-11-2006. 3.2 A show cause notice dated 13-7-2007 came to be issued proposing that the clearances of goods valued Rs. 27,84,85,045/- effected from 5-9-2006 to 3-11-2006 should have been made paying duty on consignment basis from PLA without using Cenvat credit and accordingly, proposal was made for demanding duty and interest and for imposition of penalty. Original Authority passed following order - "1. I order that the assessee is liable to pay Rs. 4,54,48,760/- (Rs. Four crore fifty four lakh fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise Rules, 2002 is present to impose a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. 5. Ld. SDR submits that there is clear violation of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and the consequences are to follow. The order of the Commissioner clearly mentions that the assessee is liable to pay Rs. 4,54,48,760/- and, therefore, adjustment of duty already paid does not absolve them of their liability to pay interest. He also justifies the penalty imposed. 6.1 I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. It is noticed from the records that the appellant is a unit paying revenue of more than Rs. 2 Crores per month. It is not in dispute that there was a short payment to the tune of Rs. 34,498/-. The appellants' submission was that such a mistak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any, which in his opinion has not been paid by such person and, then, the Central Excise Officer shall proceed to recover such amount in the manner specified in this section, and the period of "one year" referred to in sub-section (I) shall be counted from the date of receipt of such information of payment. 6.3 In my considered opinion, this is a fit case for invocation of the provisions of Section 11A(2B). Though, there is a deemed violation of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, no mens rea is attributable. Further, the detection of mistake was by the appellant themselves and their taking remedial action deserves to be accepted in the light of specific provisions under Section 11A(2B). Therefore, the demand of interest and impositi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
