2010 (6) TMI 406

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uty on monthly basis as provided in Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. On scrutiny of the monthly returns i.e. ER-1 for the month of February, 2008, it was noticed that the appellant had not paid the Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 80,000/- on or before 5-3-08 as required under Rule 8(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. On pointing out, the appellant paid the said amount of duty on 16-5-08 i.e. after 73 days from the due date. It was also noticed that the appellant paid the Central Excise duty for the month of March 2008 amounting to Rs. 3,98,606/- and April 2008 to Rs. 1,81,909/- on monthly basis and utilized the Cenvat Credit. 3. According to sub-rule 3(A) of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, if the assessee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the rule has been contravened, the goods have to be deemed to have been removed without payment of duty and the manufacturer has to be penalized accordingly. He submits that Rule 25 provides for penalty in the case of removal of the goods without payment of duty and therefore it is Rule 25 which is correctly applicable and therefore the penalty imposed is justifiable. 7. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sai Packaging Industries v. C.C.E., Chennai, 2010 (253) E.L.T. 107 (Tri.-Chennai), supports the case of the Revenue. In that case, it was held that the provisions of Section 11AC are not attracted since the goods have been cleared in contravention of Rule 8(3A), the pr....