TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 1040
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e For the Respondent: Shri G.R. Singh, DR ORDER PER: S.K. MOHANTY The brief facts of the case are as under:- For the month of April 2012, the appellant had reflected the Central Excise Duty liability of Rs. Rs. 12,06,743/- in its ER-1 return. Out of the said declared duty liability, the appellant had paid Rs. 7,06,743/- within the stipulated time frame prescribed in Rule 8 (1) of the Central ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibunal. 2. The ld. Advocate Shri V.R. Sethi appearing for the appellant submits that the phrase "without utilizing cenvat credit" appearing in sub-rule (3A) of Rule 8 was declared invalid by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Indsur Global Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2014 (310) ELT 833 (Guj.). According to the ld. Advocate, the effect of said sub-rule after deletion of the abov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vat credit" in sub-rule (3A) of Rule 8, the outcome is that excise duty can be paid for each consignment at the time of removal by utilizing the cenvat credit. Since the duty liability has been discharged by the appellant on each and every clearance of the finished product from the factory by utilizing cenvat credit, such payment is in conformity with the above statutory provisions. Thus, confirma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Guj.). 7. However, considering the fact that the duty attributable to removal of excisable goods has not been paid by the appellant within the stipulated time, I am of the view that the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002 have been violated, for which penalty can be imposed under Rule 27 of the rules. Accordingly, penalty imposed in the adjudication order and confirmed in the impugned order....