9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7/DMN/SDMN/2012-13, dt.08.05.12. The issue involved in these appeals is that appellant No.1 did not discharge the duty liability for the month of December 2007 to February 2008 and therefore defaulted the duty demand as per Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Appellant No. 1 continued to pay central excise duty by utilising the cenvat credit for the period February 2008 to December 2008. Under the order in original dated 15.11.11 the demand of Rs.9,96,740/- was confirmed against appellant No.1 along with interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A penalty of Rs.9,96,740/- was also imposed upon the appellant No.1 under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 194 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ELT 281 (T) 7. Ashok Indian Engg. Works Vs. Collector, 1998 (98) ELT 659 (T) 8. Akatar Ali Hasan Ali Tobaccowala Vs. Collector, 1994 (73) ELT 142 (T) 5. It is seen from the rival submissions and the relied upon case laws on the subject that imposition of penalty in case of default has already been settled in a series of judgments in the case of Tejpal Paper Mills Ltd. (supra). The following law has been laid down in paragraph 7 which is reproduced below. 7. After considering the submissions made by both the sides, I find that even according to the amended provisions of Rule 8, as contained in Rule 8A, the failure on the part of the assessee to pay duty on consignment basis from PLA shall be deemed as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The only penalty which could have been invoked is under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules because appellant No.1 has contravened the provisions of Central Excise Rules for making the payments from cenvat credit when they were required to make the payments in cash for each consignment. It is seen from the show cause notice dated 25.11.10 that no penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules has been proposed against appellant No.1. Accordingly, the penalties that Rs.9,96,740/- imposed against appellant No.1 is required to be set aside. 7. So far as imposition of penalties upon appellant No.2 and 3 are concerned, it is seen that the goods were cleared on payment of duty but instead of maki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
