9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule has been struck down by the Hon'ble High Court and the demand of duty and penalty imposed in the impugned orders is liable to be set aside.' There are no merit in the demands confirmed in the impugned orders and hence, the impugned order to this extent cannot sustain - appeal of Revenue dismissed. - Hon ble Shri P. Dinesha , Member ( Judicial ) And Hon ble Shri M. Ajit Kumar, Member ( Technical ) Shri N. Viswanathan , Advocate for the Appellant-Assessee Shri N. Satyanarayanan , AC ( AR ) for the Respondent ORDER Per P. Dinesha , All these cross appeals are admitted to be arising out of the same Order in Appeal with no disputes as regards the facts are concerned and hence, these appeals are clubbed together for common disposal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discharge their duty liability consignment-wise through Account Current in respect of clearances from 01.05.2011 (after grace period of 30 days from due date 31.03.2011 which ended on 30.04.2011). They erroneously utilised CENVAT Credit for duty payment even prior to settlement of dues of Rs.5,29,888/- with interest i.e. till 01.11.2011. Therefore, in terms of the provisions of Rule 8(3A), their removals from 01.05.2011 till 31.10.2011 (hereinafter referred to as Impugned Period) were deemed to be non-duty paid, entailing recovery and penal proceedings. 1.3 As a consequence, the Respondent sought to demand central excise duties in cash/Account Current as mentioned in Col.(5) of Table with reference to period as mentioned in Col. (4) of Tabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e would thus pray for allowing the assessees appeals with consequential benefits as prayed for in their Memorandum of Appeal. 3.1. Per contra, Sri N. Satyanarayanan, Ld. Assistant Commissioner appearing for the Revenue, supported the findings of the lower authorities. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and we have carefully perused both the orders of lower authorities; we have also gone through the decisions/orders relied upon during the course of arguments. 4.1. The only issue that survives for our consideration in all these appeals is, whether the demand as confirmed and upheld in the impugned order for a violation of Rule 8(3A) ibid against the assessee/taxpayer, is sustainable in law ? 4.2. Insofar as the Revenue s appeals are conce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferent period. In view of the above position of law as settled by higher judicial form which is followed by Chennai bench, we do not find any merit in the demands confirmed in the impugned orders and hence, the impugned order to this extent cannot sustain. 6.1. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders insofar as the Assessee s appeals are concerned and allow their appeals with consequential benefits as per law. 7. In so far as the Revenue appeals are concerned, we find that, the duty has been set aside, although for a different reasons, but however, we do not find any merit in the Revenue appeals. 7.1. Resultantly Revenue s appeals are dismissed. 8. In the result, Assessee s appeals are allowed with consequential benefits, if any, as p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
