2024 (7) TMI 681

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... no disputes as regards the facts are concerned and hence, these appeals are clubbed together for common disposal. Facts of the case as could be gathered from the impugned order of the First Appellate Authority are that the appellant, a small-scale manufacturer of P of P medicaments falling under Chapter 30 of First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, defaulted in payment of their quarterly duty liability for the QE 31.03.2011 (January 2011 to March2011) which was paid short by Rs.5,22,888/-. The due date for duty payment was 31.03.2011. The Appellant belatedly settled defaulted dues of Rs.5,29,888/- through PLA, along with interest of Rs.85, 177/-, only on 01.11.2011. 1.1 The provisions of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s in cash/Account Current as mentioned in Col.(5) of Table with reference to period as mentioned in Col. (4) of Table, along with interest. After due process of law, the proposed demands of duties and interest were confirmed vide Orders-in-Original as mentioned in Col (3) of Table. Further, the Respondent vide impugned order imposed penalties equal to demand under Section 11AC of the Act /Rule 25 of the Rules. Further, the goods cleared during the period as in Col.(4) of the Table were confiscated under Rule 25 of the Rules, and redemption fine in lieu confiscation as listed in Col. (5) of Table were imposed. 2. Shri N. Viswanathan, Ld. Advocate appeared for the assessee and Sri N. Satyaranayanan, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (AR) appeared f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....olation of Rule 8(3A) ibid against the assessee/taxpayer, is sustainable in law"? 4.2. Insofar as the Revenue's appeals are concerned, we find the following question arises for our consideration: "Whether the FAA is justified in deleting the demand confirmed by the AA"? 5. This Bench in the case of Cheran Cements Ltd. Vs. CCE, Trichy (supra) has followed the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat and Madras High Courts and thereafter, has held as under: "7. Both Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and Madras High Court have held that condition contained in Rule 8 (3A) of Central Excise Rules 2002 for payment of duty "without utilisation of cenvat credit" is contrary to the scheme of availment of cenvat credit under CCR and the said Rule 8(....