TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 815
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....013 in terms of which the Commissioner:- (i) confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,06,33,144/- (Rupees Two Crore Six Lac Thirty Three Thousand One Hundred Forty Four Only) against M/s. Krishna Engineering Works Ltd. (Unit-II), A-20, Focal Point, Jalandhar under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 to be paid by them without utilization of Cenvat Credit. (ii) confirmed the demand of interest, as due and payable under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the amount of Central Excise duty as per Sl. No. (i) above, payable by M/s. Krishna Enginee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- (Edu.Cess) + Rs. 28212/- Sec. & Higher Edu. Cess) out of which an amount of Rs. 24,10,041/(Rs. 23,39,548/- (Duty) + Rs. 46670/- (Edu. Cess)+ Rs. 23823/- (Sec. & Higher Education Cess) only was debited vide RG-23A/C Part-II on 31.12.07 and the balance amount of Rs. 4,95,617/- (Rs. 481481/- (Duty) + Rs. 9747/- (Edu. Cess) + Rs. 4389/- (Sec. & Higher Edu. Cess) was not paid by the due date i.e. 05.01.2008. The said outstanding amount of Rs. 495617/- was not paid within 30 days with interest even upto 04.02.2008. However, out of the said outstanding amount, an amount of Rs. 4,87,872/- (Rs. 473961/- (Duty)+ Rs. 9597/- (Edu. Cess)+Rs. 4314/- (Sec. & Higher Edu. Cess was paid in PLA by Noticee on 11.02,2008 i.e. a few days after the expiry of 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Appellants have contended that:- (i) the short payment of Rs. 7520/- was a mere accounting error which was corrected the moment it was pointed out. (ii) For this tiny amount, to treat the period of default from 5.2.2008 to 07.12.2009 and demand duty on clearances upto 7.12.2009 in cash is untenable. (iii) The Appellants cited several judgements in their favour including M/s. J.B. Mangharam Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Indore, 2012 (285) ELT 394 (Tri.-Del.) and M/s. Meenakshi Associates Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida 2013 (2950 ELT 578 (Tri.-Delhi). (iv) There is no wilfull suppression or mis-statement of fact as the ER-1 returns were regularly filed showing the true picture and therefore extended per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the grace period of 30 days as provided under the rules. The amount paid by the appellant, however, was slightly less in various instances and that shortfall was made good with interest in November 2009. From this, prima facie, it can be inferred that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to evade the payment of excise duty and the defaults occurred due to computation error. This inference gets strengthen from the fact that the amount of shortfall in the payment of excise duty is negligible as compared to the amount of duty paid for respective months. Undisputedly, the shortfall was made good by the appellant after it was brought to his notice. The question arise whether Rule 8 (3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is attract....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oticee is liable for penal action under the provision of Rule 25(1) (a) of the Rules read with Section 11AC of Act. Thus the Commissioner has scarcely brought out to any degree of sufficiency the sustainability of the allegation of suppression or wilfull mis-statement on the part of the Appellants. On the other hand, prima facie, Appellants had been regularly submitting ER-1 returns and other returns and had not suppressed any facts or made any wilfull mis-statemens which are the required ingredients for invoking the extended period. 11. In the case of Meenakshi Associates Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida 2013 (295) ELT 578 (Tri-Del.) the CESTAT inter alia held in para 16 that:-  ....