Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2017 (12) TMI 326

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l Excise Rules 2002 by impugned order-in-appeal no. RBT/86/2011 dated 14th March 2011 of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone I which has upheld the order of the lower authority. 2. Appellant is a manufacturer of hydrochloric acid and red oxide falling under chapter 28 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and, admittedly, during May September 2007 had not complied with the deadlines in rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for payment of duty. The rules stipulate that the duty liability for the previous month is to be deposited by the 5th of the following month and, in the event of failure to pay duty by the stipulated date, at the scheduled rate was to be deposited along with outstanding amount and, in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l.)] and Premier Percelain Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2017 (349) ELT 150 (Tri.-Del.)]. It is also the contention of the counsel for the appellant that Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Indsur Global Ltd v. Union of India [2014 (310) ELT 833 (Guj.)] had declared rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules 2002 to be ultra vires. 4. Learned Authorised Representative relies on the decision of the Tribunal in Shivam Pressings v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune I [2015 (326) ELT 351 (Tri.-Mumbai)] and upon Meghdoor Gramoudyog Sewa Sansthan v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida [2014 (312) ELT 699 (Tri.-Del.)] to contend that, for contraventions specified in rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, mere contravention alone ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....factory or the warehouse during a month shall be paid by the 6th day of the following month, if the duty is paid electronically through internet banking and by the 5th day of the following month, in any other case : xxxxx (4) If the assessee fails to pay the amount of duty by due date, he shall be liable to pay the outstanding amount along with interest at the rate specified by the Central Government vide notification under section 11AA of the Act on the outstanding amount, for the period starting with the first day after due date till the date of actual payment of the outstanding amount. (5) If the assessee fails to pay the duty declared as payable by him in the return within a period of one month from the due da....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....be untenable. Though the appellant had debited CENVAT account for discharging a portion of the duty liability that transaction had been received subsequently. The proposal in the show cause notice show cause notice for recovery of the amount paid through debit in CENVAT credit has been rendered infructuous as also the appropriateness of the said amount in the order of the original authority. Therefore, all that remains insofar this appeal is concerned are the penalties imposed under rule 15(2) and rule 25 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 to which reference may be made here. 9. Rule 15(2) CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. (2) In a case, where the CENVAT credit in respect of input or capital goods or input services has been taken or util....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ommissioner of Central Excise, Guntur v. Andhra Cements Limited [2007 (216) ELT 362 (AP)] held: 4. However, the learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act'). Section 11AC of the Act reads as under: Penalty for short-levy or non-levy of duty in certain cases : Where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded by reasons of fraud, collusion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty, the person who is liable to pay duty as determined under su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... increase in the duty takes effect. 5. As per Rule 25(d) of the Rules subject to the provisions of Section 11AC of the Act, if any producer, manufacturer, registered person of a warehouse or a registered dealer, contravenes any of the provisions of these rules or the notifications issued under these rules with intent to evade payment of duty, he is liable to pay the penalty in terms of rule 25 of the rules. A bare perusal of this Rule would suggest that evasion of payment of duty is not sufficient to impose penalty on a producer or manufacturer. There should be an element of intention to evade payment of duty. Unless the authorities come to a definite conclusion that there was an intention to evade the payment of duty, penalty cann....