Tribunal rules in favor of appellant on duty payment timing issue, setting aside duty confirmation order. (3A)

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the duty payment was made within the prescribed period despite a delay in transferring the amount to the Current Account. The Tribunal determined that Rule 8(3A) did not apply in this case, as the duty was paid on time and interest was paid for the delay. Consequently, the impugned order seeking duty confirmation under Rule 8(3A) was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Application of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 to the case.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing keys and pins, disclosed a duty liability in its ER-1 return for September 2011. The appellant paid a portion of the duty from the Cenvat account and the rest through the Current Account. An amount was deposited in the bank on 18.10.2011, but due to an error, it was not accounted for until 31.12.2011. The Department sought duty confirmation under Rule 8(3A) due to delayed payment and interest paid. The appellant argued that since duty was paid within 30 days of the due date, Rule 8(3A) did not apply. The Tribunal noted that the duty was paid on 18.10.2011 and interest was paid for the delay. The Tribunal found that the situation fell under sub-rule (3) and not sub-rule (3A) of Rule 8, as the duty was paid within the prescribed period. The delay in transferring the amount to the Current Account was not a valid reason for invoking sub-rule (3A), especially considering the interest payment made. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant.

---