2016 (2) TMI 144

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....charging monthly duty liability as per Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In the month of June 2013, they were liable to discharge the duty liability of Rs. 36,45,944.00. But, the dealing person inadvertently discharged the duty of Rs. 36,01,532.00 and failed to pay Rs. 44,462.00 within stipulated period, even though, there was sufficient balance in Cenvat Account. The appellant subsequently detected the mistake on 05.12.2013, they paid the amount of Rs. 44,462.00 alongwith interest of Rs. 2,850.00 through PLA and reported the same in monthly ER-I return November 2013. On 03.04.2014 the Central Excise Officers visited the appellant's factory and recorded the statements of the employees of the appellant company, on the issue of no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... their account and the appellant inadvertently failed to reverse Cenvat credit of Rs. 44,462.00 from CENVAT Account for discharging monthly duty for the month of June 2013 by 05.07.2013. After detecting the mistake, they paid the duty of Rs. 44,462.00 alongwith interest on 05.12.2013. It is seen from the record that during the relevant period from 13.06.2013 to 13.12.2013, there was sufficient balance in their Cenvat Credit Account and PLA, as under:- Sr. No. Last day of the month Closing balance (Rs.) Cenvat PLA Total 1 30.06.2013 16,90,232 34,95,690 51,85,922 2 31.07.2013 12,58,306 31,74,690 44,32,996 3 31.08.2013 19,55,935 32,04,690 51,60,625 4 30.09.2013 14,59,547 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 10,09,097.00, which the re-credited in PLA Account for contravention of Rule 8 (3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. We find that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Indsur Global Ltd (supra) the reversal of credit during the defaulted period from Cenvat Account is valid, and therefore, the demand of amount of Rs. 10,09,097.00 for contravention of Rule 8 (3A) of the said Rules cannot be sustained. The Learned Authorised Representative submits that the appellant is liable to pay interest under Rule 8 (3A) of the said Rules for failure to clear the goods on consignment wise. We find that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shreeji Surface Coatings Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India 2015 (320....