TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal dismissed, penalty reduced for non-compliance with Central Excise Rules</h1> The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) decision. The Appellant's claim for the benefit of Notification No. 8/03 was refuted due to ... SSI Exemption - Contravention of provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No.08/03-CE dated 01.03.2003 - Held that:- The appellant did not opt for availing the benefit of Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.3.2003 at the beginning of the financial year thus option for the availment is not in accordance with the Central Excise Rules - The duty and the Education Cess which they did not pay for not determining the value of Rs. 25,44,255/- in computation with the aggregate value for home consumption, is computable with the aggregate clearance value in terms of the Notification No.08/2003-CE dated 01.3.2003. Penalty under Rule 27 is not sustainable as it was not invoked in the impugned SCN. Issues:- Appeal against modification of lower Adjudicating Authority's Order- Alleged contravention of Central Excise Rules and Notification- Dispute over payment of duty and Education Cess- Imposition of penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002- Availment of benefit under Notification No. 8/2003 dated 01.03.03Analysis:1. The Appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal modifying the lower Adjudicating Authority's Order. The case revolved around the alleged contravention of Central Excise Rules and Notification, specifically Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No.08/03-CE dated 01.03.2003. The dispute arose due to the Appellant not discharging the duty at the prescribed rate, leading to a show cause-cum-demand notice being issued against them.2. The lower Adjudicating Authority confirmed the duty amount and imposed a penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Upon appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confirmation of the duty demand but set aside the penalty under Rule 27. The Appellant contested this decision, claiming entitlement to the benefit of Notification No.8/03 dated 01.03.03, which required payment of duty at a lower rate.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the Appellant did not opt for the benefit of Notification No. 8/2003-CE at the start of the financial year as per Central Excise Rules. The Appellant's option for availing the notification on 05.05.2004 was deemed non-compliant. Consequently, the duty and Education Cess amount not paid for failing to determine the value in computation with the aggregate clearance value were held payable. The Adjudicating Authority adjusted the demanded amount, reducing it to Rs.2,01,485/-, and imposed a penalty under Rule 27, which was deemed unsustainable due to not being invoked in the show cause notice.4. The Appellant's argument regarding the benefit of Notification No.8/03 was refuted by the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the lower Adjudicating Authority's decision. The Appellant failed to provide evidence contradicting the findings. Consequently, the Appeal was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) Order. The judgment emphasized the importance of compliance with Central Excise Rules and Notifications to avail benefits and avoid penalties.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
