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>Appellant Must Pay Excise Duty Balance & Discharge in Cash</h1> <h3>PARAMOUNT PRINT PACKAGING Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELAPUR</h3> PARAMOUNT PRINT PACKAGING Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELAPUR - TMI Issues:Appeal against duty demand confirmation under Rule 8 (4) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11 of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Dispute over utilization of Cenvat Credit - Applicability of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Interpretation of High Court decisions regarding Cenvat Credit utilization during default period.Analysis:The judgment pertains to an appeal and stay petition challenging an order confirming a duty demand against the appellant under Rule 8 (4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant, a printing and packaging company, defaulted in payment of excise duty from April 2012 to February 2013. The appellant contended that the adjudicating authority did not consider the full amount paid by them and wrongly denied Cenvat Credit of &8377; 74,45,393/-, citing a High Court decision in Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. vs. UOI. The appellant argued they should only be liable to pay &8377; 51,95,736/- for the default period, promising to pay if granted time.The revenue, represented by the Additional Commissioner, argued that Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 mandates cash payment of duty if default exceeds thirty days, disallowing Cenvat Credit utilization during the default period. Citing the High Court decisions in Unirols Airtex vs. CCE and Manjunatha Industries vs. CCE, the revenue contended that Cenvat Credit cannot be utilized as a matter of right during default, emphasizing that the entire outstanding amount must be paid. The judgment highlighted the necessity of discharging the defaulted payment in cash as per the clear provisions of Rule 8(3A), supported by the legal interpretations in the mentioned High Court cases.The Tribunal, after considering both parties' submissions, analyzed the applicability of Rule 8(3A) and the interpretations provided by the High Courts in Unirols Airtex and Manjunatha Industries cases. The Tribunal emphasized that during a default period, the assessee cannot utilize the Cenvat Credit for duty payment, as explicitly stated in Rule 8(3A). The Tribunal distinguished the situation in the Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. case, stating that its ratio does not apply in the present matter. Consequently, the Tribunal found the appellant liable to pay the balance amount of &8377; 1,26,31,129/-, subject to verification of the amount already paid. The Tribunal directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit within eight weeks, with non-compliance leading to the waiver of interest and penalty, and a stay on recovery during the appeal's pendency.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
