9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 734X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The facts briefly recapitulated to appreciate the issue are as under:- The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On scrutiny of ER 1 return for the month of January, 2010, it was observed that the appellants had cleared excisable goods valued at Rs. 16,35,444/- involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,34,759/- out of which an amount of Rs. 66,804/- was debited from Cenvat Credit Account and balance amount of Rs. 67,955/- was payable from Current Account. However, the appellants failed to deposit this amount of Rs. 67,955/- by due date i.e. 05.02.2010 but paid the same vide PLA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Duty payable was Rs. 1,34,759/- out of which Rs. 66,804/- was debited from Cenvat A/c and balance of Rs. 67,955/- was payable, but party failed to deposit the same by 05.02.2010 to 31.03.2010 and same was deposited with interest on 03.04.2010. Consignment-wise duty from PLA to be paid by the party from 07.03.2010 to 03.04.2010 value comes to Rs. 19,62,720/- and duty involved was Rs. 2,02,160/- during the period 07.03.2010 to 03.04.2010 for which a Show Cause Notice dated 16.12.2010 was issued to the party and adjudicated vide AO No.16/PS/D-III/2010-11 dated 30.09.11, under which duty Rs. 2,02,160/- was confirmed with interest of Rs. 14,976/- and penalty Rs. 2,02,160/-. Party had gone in appeal. Commissioner (Appeals) reduced penalty to Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eby enclosed herewith for ready reference. As stated above, it is confirmed that the amount of duty in subject case has not been paid twice by the party. 4. Major issue for consideration in this appeal is that grievance of double payment and particular adequacy of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) after reducing the penalty from Rs. 2,02,160/-. It is the case of default in payment of duty where Central Excise duty for the month of January, 2010 has been made in contravention of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellants paid the same only on 03.04.2010 instead of 5.2.2010 or 5.3.2010 with interest which was not paid in time and thus clearances made from 6.3.2010 to 3.4.2010 shall be considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 follow. 6. Matter has also been clarified by Gujarat High Court in the case of Harash Silk Industries 2013 (288) ELT 74 (Gujrat) where compliance to rule 8 has been held mandatory. Judgment was delivered in respect of erstwhile rule 8(4) but it is squarely applicable in respect of rule 8(3A). 7. In a recent judgment delivered by Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Unirols Airtex Vs. Assist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
