Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2009 (6) TMI 493

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appellants challenge the order dated 22-12-2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai, whereby the appeal filed by the department was allowed and the order passed by the original authority viz. Additional Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Belapur on 15-11-2007 was set aside. Under the order passed by the original authority, the demand for Rs.20,75,184/- along with education cess of Rs.41,504/- was dropped while imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The interference by the Commissioner (Appeals) was in relation to the dropping of the demand of Rs.20,75,184/- and education cess of Rs.41,504/- and failure to order confiscation of the goods on the ground of the same was not available p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hich had remained to be paid was immediately paid, alongwith the interest thereon. Besides, the amount which had remained to be paid was only Rs.7938/- and the major portion of the amount was already paid within the period of limitation. 5. The ld. D.R. submitted that the authority having taken into consideration all the materials on record, there is no case for interference with the impugned order. 6. As far as the facts in the matter in hand are concerned, the same are not in dispute. It is a matter of record that an amount of Rs.7938/- was required to be paid by 5-11-2006 being the balance amount which had remained to be paid for the month of October 2006 by the appellants. The said amount was require to be paid accordingly in terms of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e steps and therefore the appellants could not have been subjected to the payment of penalty. 8.Sub-rule 3(A) of Rule 8 of the said Rules provides that - "if the assessee defaults in payment of duty beyond thirty days from the due date, as prescribed in sub-rule(1), then notwithstanding anything contained in said sub-rule(1) and sub-rule(4) of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the assessee, shall, pay excise duty for each consignment at the time of removal, without utilising the Cenvat credit till the date the assessee pays the outstanding amount including interest thereon, and in the event of any failure, it shall be deemed that such goods have been cleared without payment of duty and the consequences and penalties as provided in thes....