Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (3) TMI 688

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he appeal has not controverted this finding. The impugned order also found that the stipulation on manner of payment of duty has been breached for March 2011 to July 2011 but that, in the absence of recovery mechanism in Central Excise Rules, 2002, only penal consequences may arise. This, too, has not been controverted in the appeal. It was also held that the disputed amount, as arrears of duty, was payable either by deposit or debit of CENVAT balance in much the same way as regular discharge of duty liability. The grounds of appeal put forth the unheard of, and perverse, proposition that law, in the form of Act and Rules, will always prevail over judgements; apparently, these worthies are unaware that law comprises streams which include le .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Rules, 2002, in notice dated 27th March 2012 was modified to accept the duty already so discharged subject to payment of interest arising therefrom till 28th May 2012 and imposition of penalty of Rs. 5000 under rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The reviewing authority was aggrieved that the assessee had not been subjected to the requirement of rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and that penalty had not been imposed under the rule proposed in the notice even though the duty liability for the disputed period was not disturbed and interest was directed to be paid. A brief overview of the facts and circumstances would be of assistance in evaluating the legality in the appeal. 2. In terms of Explanation.- For the purposes of this ru .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to substitution imperative for clearances of March 2011 onwards till July 2011 which should actually have included liability for duties arising on clearances of February and March 2011 too. 4. The adjudicating authority was, at the time of adjudication on 22nd January 2013, conscious of due discharge of liabilities for January-March 2011, along with interest - of Rs. 10,15,599 on 26th May 2012 and 28th May 2012 thereon as to be less concerned with technical minutiae than with substantive compliance. It was held in the order that the amount did stand recovered, along with interest, by the stage of adjudication and, therefore only imposition of penalty under section 11AC remained along with the issue of discharge of tax liability by deposit f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mmissioner has relied solely on CESTAT's order No. A/545/2011-WZB/C-II(EB) dated 13-06-2011 in the case of Solar Chemferts Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE, Thane-I reported in 2012 (276) ELT 273 (Tri-Mumbai). 13. It is pertinent to mention that law, in the form of Acts and Rules, will always prevail over judgments. Therefore, overlooking the provisions of the law and abiding by a single judgment would certainly not be appropriate. By accepting the payment of Rs.2,47,05,672/- through CENVAT Credit and treating it as finally paid on 28.05.2012, the Commissioner has overlooked/waived the applicability of the provisions of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, thus defeating the essence of the said rule. 14. Similarly, while imposing penalty on th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nions. They also seem to be in ignorance of interpretative function which vests exclusively in the judicial institutions. If that is the comprehension of law among enforcers of an enactment that is also the author of their being, it is a saddening to those who believe in rule of law. Indeed, Montesquieu, and several of those who followed, would surely be turning over in their graves at this patent disrespect for this fundamental foundation of rule of law. 7. The impugned order has directed that duty discharge must be accompanied by interest. There is no appeal against that part of the order. 8. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with impugned order. Appeal stands dismissed. ( Order pronounced in the open court on 14/03/202 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates