9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid by the fifth day of the following month. Rule 8(3A) thereafter stipulates that if there is a default in payment of duty beyond 30 days from the due date, then notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (4) of rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the assessee has to pay duty for each consignment including interest without utilizing the Cenvat credit. It was the Cenvat credit which was utilized by the appellant despite the default. The Tribunal has directed the appellant to deposit an amount of ₹ 5,26,305/- with a further qualification that upon this deposit, the Cenvat credit would be re-credited to the account. We have also noted above that the only submission which was raised before the Tribunal, was b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd of Rs.7,90,954/- together with interest and imposed a penalty in the like amount besides a personal penalty of Rs.20,000/- on the partner. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of adjudication on 29 June 2010 save and except for the penalty which was reduced to Rs.2,00,000/-. In appeal before the CESTAT an order was passed on 6 May 2011 on an application for waiver of pre-deposit directing the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.5,26,305/- within a period of three months from the date of the order. However, the Tribunal observed that once this amount was paid through the PLA, the amount which had been paid through Cenvat credit would be re-credited to that account. The Tribunal held that under rule 8(3A), the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that in the earlier order, the appellant had been directed to deposit an amount of Rs.5 lacs as against which it had deposited an amount of Rs.6,25,194/- together with interest and it was in these circumstances that the Tribunal observed that if this fact was drawn to its attention, it would not have directed a pre-deposit of a further amount of Rs.5 lacs. On the other hand, in the present case, there was no deposit of any amount towards the pre-deposit. The Tribunal has relied on a judgment of the Madras High Court in Unirols Airtex Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore1 and held that a period of two years had elapsed but no deposit had been effected. We have duly considered the order which has been passed on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant had deposited much more than what was directed to be deposited by way of pre-deposit. In this view of the matter, the appeal will not raise any substantial question of law. Though the order of pre-deposit was passed as far back as on 6 May 2011, the appellant has not deposited any amount by way of duty on the ground that the miscellaneous application remained pending. The Tribunal extended the time for effecting the deposit by a period of four weeks and directed that the matter be listed for compliance on 6 May 2014. In the interest of justice, we extend the time for effecting compliance by a further period of two weeks from today. Leaving it open to the appellant to do so, we dismiss the appeal as it does not give rise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
