TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 973
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ainst the said amount to be paid in cash under the provisions of Rule 8(3A) is correct and legal and further penalty of Rs. 50,000/- have been rightly imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant is registered manufacturer under Central Excise provisions of M.S. bars, Angles, Channels etc. 2. Brief facts are that duty for the month of June, 2013 was payable and paid as follows:- Particulars (in Rs.) Duty (Cenvat) Ed. Cess SH Ed. Cess A. Total duty payable 3,87,798/- 7756/- 3880/- B. Duty paid i) Through RG-23A Pt. II on dated 30.06.2013. ii) PLA (through challan) on dated 08.08.2013. 3,47,798/- 40,000/- 0/- 0/- 0/- 3880/- Balance duty payable Nil Nil Ni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bstituted vide Notification No. 19/2014-CE(NT) dated 11.07.2014, w.e.f. 11.07.2014, which reads as follows:- "(3A) 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 date, then the assessee is liable to pay the penalty at the rate of one per cent on such amount of the duty not paid, for each month or part thereof calculated from the due date, for the period during which such failure continues. Explanation: For the purposes of this sub-rule, 'month' means the period between two consecutive due dates for payment of duty specified under sub-rule (1) or the first proviso to sub-rule (1), as the case may be.]" 7. The appellant had cleared goods during the period 06.08.201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....longwith interest under Section 11(1) and 11AA of the Act. Further, penalty was also proposed under Rule 25. 9. The show cause notice was adjudicated ex-parte as the appellant did not file any reply to show cause notice nor made any submissions during the personal hearing, and the proposed demand was confirmed with interest. Further, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards penalty was also proposed under Rule 25. 10. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). In the grounds of appeal the appellant had submitted that there is no breach of any law on their part. Further, reliance was placed on the ruling of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Indsur Global Ltd. vs. UoI -2014 (310) ELT 833 (Ruj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er vs. Sejal Glass Ltd., -2019 (30) GSTL J93 (SC), confirming the ruling of Hon'ble Bombay High Court where it was held that whereas rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules prohibiting utilisation of cenvat credit for payment of duty during default, have been declared ultra vires unconstitutional by three High Courts Gujarat, Madras and Punjab & Haryana, the same is to be considered as non-existent and the Tribunal though situated in other States, relying upon the said decision and passing order, cannot be faulted. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that once a provision is declared ultra vires - unconstitutional by High Court, such decision is binding upon the Tribunal in other States also unless a contrary decision is rendered by ....