9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... February, 2007 and Rs.5,882/- for March, 2007. Both these amounts were repaid by the appellant in the month of June, 2007. Lower authorities have confirmed these demands also. The appellant having already discharged duty liability through PLA for the month of June, 2007 these demands of duty for two months from PLA needs to relooked. The violation of rule may be due to ignorance, thus remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for the purpose of quantification of the demand of duty. - E/2037 of 2009 (SM) - - - Dated:- 23-6-2011 - Shri M.V. Ravindran, J Appearance Shri K.K.Sharma, Advocate - for the appellant. Ms. Renu K.Jagdev, SDR # for the respondent. Per M.V.Ravindran This appeal is filed by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid the amount for these two months through the PLA. The lower authorities issued Show Cause Notice for the demand of duty for the entire period from August, 2006 to May, 2007. Both the lower authorities have held that the appellant is liable to pay duty liability for the period of August, 2006 to May, 2007 which he has done so by utilizing the Cenvat credit and also equivalent penalty and interest on the amount. 4. Ld. Counsel submits that entire case on record should be perused and would rely upon page 75 of appeal memorandum. It is her submission that there was no intention to avoid paying the duty. It is her submission that having deposited the amount of duty for the month of April, 2007 and May, 2007, he will pay balance duty immedia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 13/04/07. During the period August, 2006 to June, 2007, there is no dispute that the duty liability for these months were paid in time. Of course there is an error on the part of assessee that he did not file quarterly returns to the authorities in order to arrive at a solution. 8. In my considered view, the appellant having paid the amount of Central Excise duty for the period August, 2006 to June, 2007 within the time, utilized the Cenvat credit availed by him under Cenvat Act cannot be said to have violate Rule 8(3) for an amount of Rs.13,287/- for the month of July, 2007. The lower authorities order which confirms the demand of duty for the period of August, 2006 to June, 2007 seems to be harsh and disproportionate. The demand for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
