2013 (12) TMI 690

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....provisions of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. For the month of March 2010, they did not pay excise duty payable amounting to Rs. 3,58,77,000/- on the due date that is 31-03-2010. They did not pay the amount with interest before 30-04-2010 either as per provisions of the said Rule. They continued to make clearance of excisable goods during the period 01-05-2010 to 11-05-2010 without payment of duty on each consignment and finally paid defaulted amount of Rs. 3,58,77,000/- along with interest of Rs. 5,62,237/- on 13-05-2010. They also paid duty amount of Rs. 27,29,823/- on clearances between 01-05-2010 along with interest. 3. Revenue initiated proceedings for imposing penalty under Rule 25(a) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der Rule 27 can be imposed in which case the penalty cannot exceed Rs. 5000/-. 8. The Ld AR for Revenue submits that once an assessee is under default in payment of excise duty payable on past clearances, provisions of Rule 8(3A) stipulating that duty should be paid in cash on each consignment before clearance is attracted. If duties are not so paid, the goods are deemed to be non-duty paid as per the said Rule and hence such goods become liable to confiscation under Rule 25 of the Rules and assessee becomes liable to penalty under Rule 25 (a). He argues that in the case of Suarashtra Cements (supra) during at the material time, the rule was worded differently and there was no requirement that the assessee should have paid duty on eac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(iii) A. R. Metallurgicals P Ltd Vs. CCE -2011 (263) ELT 411 (Tri-Chennai); (iv) Paras Lubricants Ltd Vs. CCE-2012 (286) ELT 82 (Tri-Mum). 13. I have considered arguments on both sides. The decisions quoted by the Counsel for appellant are the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Saurasthra Cements and decisions given relying on this decision. As the Ld AR points out the law has changed subsequent to the period for which the case of Saurashtra Cements was decided. This aspect is not considered in the other two decisions that followed the said decision though it related to subsequent period. So, I do not consider it proper to follow those decisions. That is to say, I find it proper to follow the decision of the Tribunal in the....