9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1040X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, non-payment of duty as prescribed in Rule 8 (3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is not attributable to suppression, wilful misstatement or contravention of any of the provisions of the Rules, with intent to evade payment of duty Considering the fact that the duty attributable to removal of excisable goods has not been paid by the appellant within the stipulated time, the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002 have been violated, for which penalty can be imposed under Rule 27 of the rules. Accordingly, penalty imposed in the adjudication order and confirmed in the impugned order are set aside and the same is restricted to ₹ 5,000/- under Rule 27 of the rules. Since there is no element of mensrea in the present case, impos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Being aggrieved with the said impugned order, the appellant has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The ld. Advocate Shri V.R. Sethi appearing for the appellant submits that the phrase without utilizing cenvat credit appearing in sub-rule (3A) of Rule 8 was declared invalid by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Indsur Global Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2014 (310) ELT 833 (Guj.). According to the ld. Advocate, the effect of said sub-rule after deletion of the above phrase is to the effect that the cenvat credit can be utilized for payment of excise duty for each consignment at the time of removal. According to him, since as per the requirement of the said sub-rule, the appellant had discharged the excise duty li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposition of penalty under Rule 25 by the lower authorities is not legal and proper. In this context, I find support from the judgement of Hon ble Gujarat High Court delivered in the case of CCE vs. Saurashtra Cement Ltd., reported in 2010 (260) ELT 71 (Guj.). 7. However, considering the fact that the duty attributable to removal of excisable goods has not been paid by the appellant within the stipulated time, I am of the view that the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002 have been violated, for which penalty can be imposed under Rule 27 of the rules. Accordingly, penalty imposed in the adjudication order and confirmed in the impugned order are set aside and the same is restricted to ₹ 5,000/- under Rule 27 of the rules. 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
