2017 (11) TMI 1038

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) on the appellant who was the Managing Director of M/s. Reliance Engineers Ltd. Against the said penalty the appellant had filed the present appeal. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of wires and cables classified under Chapter 85 and 74 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are registered with Central Excise vide ECC No.AAACR6557LXM003. They are also availing the facility of cenvat credit on inputs, input services and capital goods under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Intelligence gathered by the officers of Headquarters Preventive Unit of the Commissionerate indicated that the appellant have cleared raw materials and capital goods ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed contrary to binding judicial precedent. She further submitted that the impugned order concedes that the company has filed returns for the period March 2010 to October 2010 belatedly on 23.11.2010 and paid duty by utilizing the credit. She further submitted that the impugned order has confirmed the demand of duty on the ground that the company has erred in not discharging excise duty through cash in terms of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules. She further submitted that the provisions of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules has been declared as unconstitutional and hence the demand cannot be sustained by invoking Rule 8(3A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... V. Chopra Engineering Co. - 2016 (339) E.L.T. 423 (Tri.-Mumbai) e. Siyaram Packaging Pvt. Ltd. V. CCE - 2013 (292) E.L.T. 575 (Tri.-Ahmd.) f. Anil Kumar Saxena V. CCE - 2000 (129) E.L.T 351 (Tri.-Del.) 5. On the other hand the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that in this case the company was closed from August 2008 due to labour unrest. The impugned demand pertains to capital goods and notice obtained by the Bank to recover dues. Further the goods were cleared under the cover of excise invoices but returns were filed belatedly discharging duty by utilizing credit. I also find that the dela....