Tribunal Upholds Decision on Tax Demand, Interest, and Penalty

M/s. Munis Forge Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur (Vice-Versa)

M/s. Munis Forge Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur (Vice-Versa) - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Validity of demand for Ed. Cess and S.H. Ed. Cess.
2. Validity of demand for Central Excise Duty.
3. Recovery of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
4. Imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
5. Constitutional validity of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Demand for Ed. Cess and S.H. Ed. Cess:
- Commissioner's Decision: The Commissioner dropped the demand of Rs. 6855/- raised in the show cause notice on account of Ed. Cess and S.H. Ed. Cess under Section 11A of the Act as it had already been paid by the Noticee.
- Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to drop the demand since the amount had already been paid by the appellant.

2. Validity of Demand for Central Excise Duty:
- Commissioner's Decision: The Commissioner dropped the demand of Rs. 1,48,87,372/- (comprising Rs. 1,44,53,761/- Cenvat, Rs. 2,89,074/- Ed. Cess, and Rs. 1,44,547/- H S Ed. Cess) raised in the show cause notice under Section 11A of the Act as it had already been paid and the dispute in the manner of payment did not fall within the purview of Section 11A of the Act.
- Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the payments made by the appellant by utilizing the CENVAT Credit could not have been considered as payment of duty during the period of default as per Rule 8(3) and 8(3A). However, the Tribunal also considered the constitutional validity of Rule 8(3A), which had been declared unconstitutional by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Indsur Global Ltd. Consequently, the very basis of the show cause notice did not survive, and the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to drop the demand.

3. Recovery of Interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
- Commissioner's Decision: The Commissioner ordered the recovery of interest under Section 11AB on the default payment made for October 2009 until the actual payment date and appropriated the amount already paid by the noticee.
- Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in detail, but by implication, the recovery of interest was not contested separately from the main demands.

4. Imposition of Penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002:
- Commissioner's Decision: The Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,48,87,372/- on the Noticee under Rule 25 for contravention of provisions of Rule 4, 8(1), 8(3), and 8(3A).
- Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal concluded that since the payment of duty by utilizing the CENVAT Credit was deemed proper (following the High Court's decision on Rule 8(3A)), the appellant could not be charged for contravention of the provisions of Rule 4, 8(1), 8(3), and 8(3A). Consequently, the penalty imposed under Rule 25 was set aside.

5. Constitutional Validity of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002:
- High Court's Decision: The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Indsur Global Ltd. declared Rule 8(3A) unconstitutional to the extent that it restricted the payment of Central Excise duty from the CENVAT Credit Account during the period of default.
- Tribunal's Analysis: Following the High Court's decision, the Tribunal held that the restriction imposed by Rule 8(3A) on utilizing CENVAT Credit for payment of Central Excise duty was invalid. Therefore, the appellant's payment method using CENVAT Credit was proper, and the penalty and demands based on this rule were not sustainable.

Conclusion:
- Appeal No E/460/2012 (Appellant): Allowed.
- Appeal No E/614/2012 (Revenue): Dismissed.

(Order pronounced in the open court)