9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... secondary contravention of not paying the duty consignmentwise – Held that:- Appellants’ bona fide belief that since paragraph 2(i) of the small-scale exemption Notification No. 8/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003 was merely a condition of the small-scale exemption, they were entitled to opt out of the same, but they were still qualifying under the criteria of the small-scale exemption and hence, they were entitled to pay duty by the 15th day of the following month - Their bona fide belief is reflected in various correspondences they have made to the jurisdictional Commissioner as well as to the Member, Central Excise in the Board - penalty reduced - penalties have been imposed both on the Appellant Managing Director and Appellant Executive Directo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the period, 20-10-2005 to 19-12-2005 by Cenvat Credit. But subsequently, a demand for this period has been raised against the Appellants on the ground that during this period, they were required to pay duty by cash in terms of an Order dated 17-10-2010 passed by the Original Authority under Rule 8(3A) as it existed prior to substitution of the said sub-rule with effect from 01-06-2006. 3. Both sides state that Initially the matter was decided by the lower Appellate Authority rejecting the Appeal of the Appellants on the ground of non-compliance with the direction to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 4.00 lakh. The matter had come to the Tribunal and the Tribunal had remanded the matter to the lower Appellate Tribunal subject to the conditi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re of the facility to pay the duty in monthly instalments. However, I find that the impugned Order dated 17-10-2005 has been passed by the Original Authority without following the principle of natural justice and the Appellants have also not appealed against the same. The subsequent Order of the Original Authority dated 20-11-2007, which is the matter of the present proceedings has been passed on the ground that during the forfeiture period from 20-10-2005 to 19-12-2005, the Appellants have not paid duty by cash in respect of each consignment. However, I find that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Noble Drugs v. C.C.E., Nasik reported in 2007 (215) E.L.T. 500 (Tri.-LB) held that during the impugned period, an assessee could di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in paying, duty for the month of May, 2005 beyond 30 days from the due date. Their bona fide belief is reflected in various correspondences they have made to the jurisdictional Commissioner as well as to the Member, Central Excise in the Board. These references find a mention in the impugned Order passed by the Original Authority. 6. The interpretation placed on behalf of the Appellants as above, is certainly not correct as the clear language of the Rule 8(1) states that only those assessees availing small-scale exemption are entitled to pay duty by the 15th day of the following month and if an assessee opts out of the small-scale exemption, he cannot be held to be availing the exemption. Nevertheless, the way the option has been pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
