9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id should be deemed to have been cleared without payment of duty as per Rule 8(3A). If that be so, the demand confirmed against the assessee under Section 11A cannot be resisted by them. However, they have no liability to pay interest under Section 11AB of the Act inasmuch as interest on equal amount of CENVAT credit was paid by them - Decided against assessee. - Appeal No. 2772/2010 - 730/2012 - Dated:- 26-11-2012 - Mr. P.G. Chacko, J. For the Appellant: Mr. B. V. Kumar, advocate For the Respondent: Mr S. Tali, Deputy Commissioner (AR) JUDGEMENT The appellant in this case is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods. During the material period, they were liable to pay duty in terms of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A). The appellant, however, utilized CENVAT credit to the extent of Rs. 67,619/- for payment of duty of Rs. 1,40,840/- for the month of July 2008, the differential amount having been made from PLA. The payment for the entire month, partly from PLA (Rs. 74,448/-) and partly from CENVAT account (67,619/-) was made on 23.08.2008. The interest thereon was also paid on that date. In adjudication of the relevant show-cause notice, the original authority confirmed against the assessee demand of duty of Rs. 67,619/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, demanded interest thereon under Section 11AB of the Act and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2000/- on the assessee under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules. In an appeal filed by the assessee, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) has focused his submissions around Rule 8 (3A). It is submitted that, by not paying duty consignmentwise in July 2008 and by utilizing CENVAT credit for the payment of duty for the said month, the assessee attracted Section 11A of the Central Excise Act inasmuch as the goods on which duty was paid from CENVAT account should be deemed to have been cleared without payment of duty. It is submitted that, sub-rule 3A being a specific provision covering the facts of this case, the reliance placed by the appellant on sub-rule (3) is inappropriate. Claiming support from Precision Fasteners Ltd. Vs. CCE [2011 (268) E.L.T. 163 (Guj.)], Vidushi Wires Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI [2003 (156) E.L.T. 168 (Bom.)], Godrej He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id manner in July 2008. At this stage, therefore, the department is not in a position to repair the damage. Be that as it may, the assessee (appellant) cannot escape their liability to pay duty exclusively from PLA for the month of July 2008. The departments error is not a mitigating factor for the assessee. It is not in dispute that duty of Rs. 67,619/- was paid by them from CENVAT account for the month of July 2008. The goods on which the duty was so paid should be deemed to have been cleared without payment of duty as per Rule 8(3A). If that be so, the demand confirmed against the assessee under Section 11A cannot be resisted by them. However, they have no liability to pay interest under Section 11AB of the Act inasmuch as interest on e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
