2021 (9) TMI 973

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mand again made by the impugned order against 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/- ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s as provided in this Rule shall follow. 6. Rule 8(3A) have been amended and substituted 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 8(3) of Central Excise Rules. Further, it appeared to Revenue that an amount of Rs. 2,79,762/- is again recoverable from the assessee in cash alongwith 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 the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ame and also heard the learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue. 13. The appellant, in addition to the contention before the Court below have relied on the ruling in the case of Commissioner 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 Supre....