Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2011 (10) TMI 145

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... viz., Customs & Central Excise Settlement Commission dated 23.6.2011 with direction to the first respondent to hear the matter afresh and on merits and in terms of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 with its explanation. 3. The petitioner herein is engaged in the manufacture of automobile components falling under chapter heading "87083900" of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Admittedly, the petitioner did not pay the duty in respect of its manufacture of automobile components falling between June 2009 and January 2010. The petitioner is stated to have paid the said relevant duty for the above period as follows:- DEFAULT AMOUNT Month Duty EDU CESS SHE CESS Total Duty Interest Total Paid on Jun-09 275000 6000 3000 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the Central Excise Act, 1944, apart from that with interest at the appropriate rate till the date of payment of duty under Section 11 AB read with Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules 2002 besides levying penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 and Rule 15 of Central Excise Rules 2004. 5. Immediately on receipt of the said notice, after paying the admitted duty, the petitioner moved the first respondent herein under Section 32E(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 seeking immunity from penalty, prosecution etc under the Central Excise Act. The application made by the petitioner was admitted by the first respondent herein by order dated 3.1.2011. After receipt of the report from the Commissioner, considering Rule 8(3A), the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ults in payment of duty beyond thirty days from the due date, as prescribed in sub-rule(1), then notwithstanding anything contained in said sub-rule(1) an sub-rule(4) of rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the assessee shall, pay excise duty for each consignment at the time of removal, without utilizing the CENVAT credit till the date the assessee pays the outstanding amount including interest thereon; and in the event of any failure, it shall be deemed that such goods have been cleared without payment of duty and the consequences and penalties as provided in these rules shall follow". 8. In the light of the above said provision, the first respondent viewed that if the assessee agreed to pay the duty with interest in cash, matching CENVAT .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... removal, without utilizing the CENVAT credit till the date the assessee pays the outstanding amount including interest thereon; and in the event of any failure, it shall be deemed that such goods have been cleared without payment of duty and the consequences and penalties as provided in these rules shall follow". (4) The provisions of Section 11 of the Act shall be applicable for recovery of the duty as assessed under rule 6 and the interest under sub-rule (3) in the same manner as they are applicable for recovery of any duty or other sums payable to the Central Government. Explanation.- For the purposes of this rule, the expressions 'duty' or 'duty of excise' shall also include the amount payable in terms of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 3A) under the Notification No. 8/2007-C.E.(N.T) dated 1.3.2007 with effect from the date of insertion in the rules however has not been considered at all. 13. The Revenue questioned the maintainability of the writ petition as against the order of the first respondent. In the decision of the Apex Court reported in 201 ITR 611 - JYOTENDRASINHJI v. S.I. TRIPATHI AND OTHERS , the Apex Court pointed out that where the statutory authority (in that decision the Settlement Commission) passed an order ignoring the provisions of law, thereby a prejudice is caused to the applicant, the same is liable to be interfered within the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. Considering the fact that the first respondent had not c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates