2018 (3) TMI 1238 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upheld Duty Payment Decision

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to accept duty payment under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in a case where the respondent ... Compounded levy scheme - filter khaini of various brands - Department is of the view that the appellants should pay the duty on compounded levy scheme but the Commissioner has accepted the duty as per the ER-1 under section 4 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that: - In the instant case, the respondent has paid the duty as per section 4A and that was accepted by the Commissioner without any objection - Identical issue which has came up before the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Chandigarh vs. Tej Ram Dharam Paul [2013 (8) TMI 607 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where the Tribunal observed that when duty is paid, there is no ground to interfere in the impugned order - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues: Duty payment under compounded levy scheme vs. Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944In this case, the appellant filed an appeal against Order-in-Original No. 38/2015 dated 18.11.2015. The respondent was involved in the manufacture of filter khaini packed in sachets of filter paper. The sachets were manually packed in poly pouches for export under Bond without duty payment. Subsequently, the goods were sold in the domestic market with duty payment under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The department contended that duty should be paid under the compounded levy scheme. However, the Commissioner accepted the duty payment as per the ER-1 return filed by the respondent. The Tribunal found that the duty was paid correctly as per the declaration in the ER-1 return and no suppression of facts was established by the respondent. The Tribunal referred to a similar case where it was held that when duty is paid, there is no basis for interference in the order. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal, upholding the Commissioner's decision to accept the duty payment under section 4A.In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the department's appeal and declined to interfere in the impugned order, ultimately dismissing the appeal filed by the department.