9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly, it is held that imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 has been correctly made upon the appellant – In favour of Revenue. - E/12 of 2011 - A/10653/WZB/AHD/2013 - Dated:- 10-5-2013 - H K Thakur, J. For the Appellant : Shri K I Vyas, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri H Mathew, AR. PER : H K Thakur Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Tooth Paste falling under Central Excise Tariff Heading 33061020 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against OIA No. SKSS/221/DMN/Vapi-I/2010-11 dated 09.11.2010, on the ground that penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2008 when the provisions of Rule 8(3A), as amended by Notification No.13/2006-CE (NT) dated 01.6.2006, were existing as follows:- "(3A) - If the assessee defaults in payment of duty beyond 30 days from the due date, as prescribed in sub-rule (1), then notwithstanding anything contained in said sub-rule (1) and 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 fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required to be paid in respect of each consignment by debiting account current and CENVAT amount could not have been used. Therefore, the facts in this case are clearly distinguishable from the decision in the case of Saurashtra Cement Ltd. The same principle would apply to the case of Tejpal Paper Mills also. Further, in the case of Ramson Rigid PVC Pipes [2010 (254) E.L.T. 473 (Tri.)], penalty under Rule 25 was upheld. In the case of Kitply Industries, the default occurred because no cheque was dis-honoured which was rectified with interest. Hence, that decision is not applicable. The facts in this case are entirely different. On the other hand, I find that there are several decisions, wherein a view has been taken that penalty under Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
