2014 (6) TMI 92

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....plication for modification. During the period in dispute, the allegation is that the appellant failed to deposit the monthly duty liability in terms of rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules. Hence, under rule 8(3A), the appellant was required to pay the duty consignment-wise and only through the PLA since the period of default was beyond 30 days from the due date. However, the appellant discharged the duty liability by availing of Cenvat credit which was not permissible. The Additional Commissioner by an order dated 29 January 2010 confirmed the duty demand of Rs.7,90,954/- together with interest and imposed a penalty in the like amount besides a personal penalty of Rs.20,000/- on the partner. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....income and the amount was deposited late due to financial constraints. The application for modification remained pending for nearly three years and has been disposed of by the impugned order dated 2 April 2014. During the course of the hearing before the Tribunal, as the submissions would indicate, the only submission was that in another order passed by the Tribunal on 12 June 2013 on a miscellaneous application for modification, certain relief had been granted. This was duly considered by the Tribunal in paragraph 3 of its impugned order. The Tribunal noted that in the earlier order, the appellant had been directed to deposit an amount of Rs.5 lacs as against which it had deposited an amount of Rs.6,25,194/- together with interest and i....