2017 (11) TMI 1092

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the review and scrutiny of statutory returns (ER-1s) for the period from September 2012 to November 2012, it is observed that: (a)   The assessee had not paid the duty of Rs. 28,73,305/- for the month of September 2012. However, they have paid the said duty in three installments i.e. on 23.01.2013 (Rs. 5,41,663/-), on 21.03.2013 (Rs. 9,87,167/-) and on 27.03.2013 (Rs. 13,44,475/-) along with interest of Rs. 36,026/-, Rs. 86,987/-  and Rs. 1,29,277/- respectively. Thus, it appeared that M/s. JCPL have defaulted in payment of duty for the month of September 2012 inasmuch as the due date for payment of duty for the said month was 05.10.2012 and along with interest due date was 05.11.2012, whereas the assessee have paid the du....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rs. 50,00,000/- under Rule 25. 2.   Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3.   Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed by ignoring the binding judicial precedent and also by misinterpreting Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. He further submitted that though there was non-payment of duty of excise i.e. delayed payment of duty during the months of September to November 2012 but the appellant had paid the duty along with interest much before the issue of show-cause notice and the payment of the duty with interest was done voluntarily and also informed the same to the Department. He further submitted that once the appella....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....UM c)   Auro Oil Industries V. CCE, - 2016-TIOL-434-CESTAT-MUM. d)   Hoya Lens India Pvt. Ltd. V. CCE - 2015-TIOL-2894-CESTAT-MUM. e)   Anand Tissues Ltd. V. CCE - 2016-TIOL-1021-CESTAT-DEL. Affirmed by Allahabad High Court reported in 2016-TIOL-2018-HC-ALL-CX 3.1   He further submitted that the provisions of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 cannot be pressed into service because Rule 25 is subjected to provisions of Section 11AC of the Act. For invoking Section 11AC a condition precedent is that the duty has not been levied or paid or short levied or short paid or refund is erroneously refunded by reasons for fraud, collusion or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts. In....