Tribunal upholds excise dues for non-filing and delays, emphasizing compliance with regulations

The Tribunal upheld the confirmation of dues under Rule 12(6) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, for non-filing and delayed filing of returns, rejecting the appellant's arguments that the rule was ultra vires and inapplicable to non-filing situations. The demand of Rs. 20,000 was upheld for both cases due to the significant delays in filing the required returns, emphasizing the importance of compliance with excise regulations. The appeal was dismissed, and the confirmation of dues under Rule 12(6) was affirmed by the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to the confirmation of dues under Rule 12(6) of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
2. Non-filing and delayed filing of ER-4 and ER-7 returns.
3. Applicability of Rule 12(6) in case of non-filing.

Analysis:

1. The appellant contested the confirmation of dues under Rule 12(6) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The appellant argued that the rule is ultra vires of Section 37(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Additionally, it was contended that the lower authorities wrongly applied a provision meant for late filing to a case of non-filing. The Tribunal noted that Section 37(3) of the Central Excise Act allows for an additional penalty of up to Rs. 5,000 for breaches not explicitly penalized. Rule 12(6) mandates a payment for late filing, considered a fee for regularization, not a penalty. The Tribunal found the appellant's reliance on a previous case misplaced and ruled that the rule is applicable even for non-filing scenarios. As the appellant failed to file the required returns, all of which would be delayed by over 200 days upon filing, the Tribunal upheld the demand of Rs. 20,000 without setting it aside.

2. M/s. Buneesha Chem Pvt. Ltd. neglected to file ER-4 returns for multiple years and delayed the filing of ER-7 returns significantly. The Tribunal confirmed the non-filing and delayed filing, emphasizing the gross disregard for the law by the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the returns must be filed eventually, and their delayed filing would incur the prescribed fee. Consequently, the demand of Rs. 20,000 was upheld due to the prolonged delay in filing the returns.

3. In light of the above circumstances and legal analysis, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and disposed of the cross objection. The operative part of the order was pronounced in court, affirming the confirmation of dues under Rule 12(6) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

---