9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 744X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, the said amount of duty was discharged by them in the month of December, 2006 i.e. beyond the period of 30 days and further 5 days as stipulated in the provisions. The lower authorities invoked the provisions of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and issued show-cause notice for appropriation of the said amount. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand, appropriated the amounts paid by the assessee and imposed equivalent amount of penalty. Aggrieved by such an order, on imposition of penalty, appellants preferred an appeal before the ld. Commissioner(Appeals). Ld. Commissioner(Appeals), after considering the submissions made before him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also undisputed that the said default was rectified by the appellants themselves without being intimated by the authorities in the month of December, 2006 and discharged the entire duty liability along with interest. I find that in an identical situation, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bhansali Engg. Polymers Ltd. (supra) has clearly settled the law, which is in favour of the assessee. I reproduce the ratio:- "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 mis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty, if 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 interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
