TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Appeals Granted: Penalties Set Aside for Duty Liability Default</h1> <h3>M/s Siyaram Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE Daman</h3> M/s Siyaram Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE Daman - 2013 (292) E.L.T. 575 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues involved:Appeal against duty liability default for the period December 2007 to February 2008, imposition of penalties under Rule 25 and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, payment through cenvat credit, applicability of case laws on penalty imposition.Analysis:Issue 1: Duty Liability DefaultThe appeals were filed against the duty liability default by appellant No.1 for the period December 2007 to February 2008. The original order confirmed a demand of Rs.9,96,740/- against appellant No.1, along with interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Penalties were also imposed on appellant No.1, appellant No.2, and appellant No.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order, leading to the appeals before the tribunal.Issue 2: Penalty Imposition under Rule 25Appellant No.1 contested the penalty imposition under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, relying on a judgment by CESTAT Ahmedabad bench in the case of Tejpal Paper Mills Ltd. The tribunal observed that when the default is rectified by the assessee by making payment in cash, no penalty under Rule 25 can be imposed. As appellant No.1 paid the defaulted amount in cash along with interest, the tribunal held that no penalty under Rule 25 could be imposed.Issue 3: Penalty Imposition under Rule 26Regarding penalties on appellant No.2 and appellant No.3 under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, the tribunal considered the argument that no penalties were imposable based on various judgments. The tribunal noted that the goods were cleared on payment of duty, albeit through cenvat credit instead of cash. As there was no malafide intention to evade payment of duty, penalties under Rule 26 were deemed not applicable. The tribunal highlighted that the only default was the utilization of cenvat credit, which was rectified by making payments in cash, thereby setting aside the penalties imposed on appellant No.2 and appellant No.3.Conclusion:Based on the observations and legal analysis, the tribunal allowed all three appeals filed by the appellants, setting aside the penalties imposed on them. The judgment emphasized the importance of rectifying defaults by making payments in cash to avoid penalties under the Central Excise Rules.
TaxTMI 