Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the amended Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 applied to the assessee after payment of the outstanding duty and interest, and whether the forfeiture of the facility to pay duty on a monthly basis for two months was sustainable.
Analysis: The dispute turned on the effect of the amended Rule 8(3A). The assessee had already discharged the outstanding duty liability with interest before the impugned order was passed. The amended provision provided that, on default beyond thirty days, duty would be paid on each clearance without utilizing CENVAT credit only till the outstanding amount together with interest was paid. Once such payment was made, the basis for insisting on daily payment ceased. The appellate authority therefore correctly held that the order forfeiting the monthly payment facility was not governed by the amended regime in the manner suggested by revenue.
Conclusion: The amended Rule 8(3A) applied, and the forfeiture of the monthly payment facility was not sustainable. The assessee's entitlement to pay duty on a monthly basis was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the outstanding excise duty and interest are paid before the penal consequence is enforced, the amended Rule 8(3A) does not justify continued denial of the monthly duty payment facility beyond the statutory period contemplated by the rule.