TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 197
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in body building i.e., they procure chassis manufactured by M/s Ashok Leyland and build the body completing it into a truck for the customers. They are registered with the Central Excise department and have been filing ER-1 returns and paying Central Excise duty. Between 07.07.2009 to 10.07.2009 the records of the appellant were audited and it was found that during some months, the appellant had not declared the full amount of Central Excise duty in their ER-1 returns nor has paid the same. The actual amount of duty so short paid was small. The details are as follows: Sl. No. Month & Year Duty due (Rs.) Duty paid (Rs.) Duty short paid (Rs.) Reasons 1 November 2006 56,73,304....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th Rule 8 of CER, 2002 and this amount already paid by the appellant has been appropriated towards the duty. The amounts paid towards interest by the appellant has also been confirmed and appropriated in the order. There is no dispute, so far as these amounts are concerned. 4. In addition to the above, the show cause notice also demanded an amount of Rs. 21,72,22,934/- from the appellant being the amount of Central Excise duty already paid by them between 05.01.2007 and 26.12.2009 by utilizing Cenvat credit in cash under Rule 8(3A) of CER, 2002 read with section 11A(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Thus the only disputed amount is the demand on account of denial of utilization of Cenvat credit in terms of Rule 8(3A) of CER, 2002. 5. Learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that such goods have been cleared without payment of duty and the consequences and penalties as provided in these rules shall follow." 7. We have considered the arguments on both sides. A plain reading of Rule 8(3A) of CER, 2002, makes it clear that it applies to such cases where the assessee had defaulted in payment of excise duty beyond 30 days from the due date. This does not apply to the present case because in their case they have already paid as duty even before the audit whatever they declared as payable. The audit actually found that some additional amounts were payable over and above what was declared in their ER returns as duty. Rule 8(3A) does not apply to every case where the department, during the scrutiny of returns, during a....