TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 313
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stay application, I take up the appeal. 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of medicaments. During the material period, they were liable to pay duty of excise on a quarterly basis. The duty for the month of March, 2008 had to be paid on or before the 31st of that month. For the first quarter (April to June) of 2008-09, the duty had to be paid on or before the 5th day of July, 2008. Similarly, for the second quarter (July to September) of the fiscal year, the duty had to be paid on or before the 5th day of October, 2008. The duty payable for the clearances made during March, 2008 was Rs. 3,14,237/- but the amount of duty paid by the appellant in that month was Rs. 3,07,237/- only. The arithmetical error was detected later and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r payment of duty on the goods cleared in September, 2008 and accordingly dropped the demand of duty for September, 2008. It also found that the clearances of finished goods in May, 2008 were made on payment of duty from PLA only without utilizing CENVAT credit. In the result, the demand of duty for May, 2008 also came up dropped. A penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was, however, imposed on the assessee under Rule 27 of the CER, 2002. The Order-in-Original was reviewed in the Department and an appeal was preferred to the Commissioner (Appeals) against the dropping of demand of duty for the month of May, 2008. It was contended before the appellate authority that the assessee was not authorized, under Rule 8 of the CER, 2002, to use CENVAT credit for pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... DR on various other grounds as well. It is submitted that, in the instant case, payment of duty on inputs as such cleared from the factory in the month of May, 2008, by way of debit in CENVAT account, is also payment of duty for purposes of Rule 8(3A) of the CER, 2002 by virtue of the aforesaid Explanation. 5. It is submitted that the contention of the assessee that there was no default of payment of duty in March, 2008 and that it was a case of "short-payment of duty" only which did not attract Rule 8(3A) of the CER, 2002 is not sustainable inasmuch as a total failure to pay duty and a short-payment of duty are, both, in the category of default in payment of duty. In this connection, she has relied on Godrej Hershey Ltd. v. CCE, Bhopal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ailure to comply with the obligation relating to payment of duty in the manner prescribed and within the period specified under Rule 8(1) of the said Rules would amount to default in payment of duty. It may be a short payment of duty or it may be total failure to pay the duty. Certainly, non-payment of Rs. 7,000/- in March, 2008 was a default in payment of appropriate duty for that month, which attracted the provisions of Rule 8(3A) of the CER, 2002. Consequently, there was a bar on utilization of CENVAT credit for payment of duty on any excisable goods, whether final product or inputs as such, cleared from the factory in the subsequent quarter. Admittedly, inputs as such were removed from the factory in May, 2008 on payment of duty by deb....