TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1089
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, CI Castings, Metal Roll etc. In ER-1 return for February-2009, duty payable was shown as Rs. 91,91,803/- against which, the Appellant has shown payment of Rs. 85,52,903/- from Cenvat Credit account and the balance payment of Rs. 6,38,900/- through TR6 Challan No. 16 dated 16.03.2009. Later on, it was found during investigation that they had paid the said amount of Rs. 6,38,900/- on 20th August, 2009 as against 5th March, 2009 which was the due date of payment. As appellant had paid the balance duty beyond 30 days from the due date, in view of Rule 8 (3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, they were required to pay excise duty for each consignment without utilizing the Cenvat Credit. It was found that the appellant had utilized Cenvat cre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt in the case of Banian & Berry bearings Pvt Ltd. He also cites the decision in the case of Noble Drugs Ltd 2007 (215) ELT 500 wherein it was held that what is lying in the credit is the amount of duty already paid on the imports and its utilization was equal to payment of duty through account current. • Reliance is also placed on the decision of Tribunal in the case of MM Silk Mills where it is held that amount debited in Cenvat account was to be treated as amount debited in account current. • If they again pay duty by PLA, amount already paid by them would be available as Credit. Therefore, it becomes revenue neutral situation. He relies on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narmada Chematur Ph....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Advocate mentioned that the said issue has already been decided by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s. Indsur Global Ltd as reported at 2014 (310) ELT 833 (Guj.) which has also been affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at 2018 (362) ELT A67 (SC) by dismissing the petition filed by Union of India. Further, this Tribunal in their own case vide order dated 28th August, 2019 has decided this issue in their favour. Interest due to delayed payment of duty and penalty on account of delayed filing of returns has only been confirmed. He also cites various other case laws as mentioned below:- a. Frontier Alloy Steels Ltd. V/s. Union of India reported at 2017(354) ELT 54 (All.) and further upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... months which they could pay only on 28th August, 2009 instead of 5th March 2009. The provisions of Rule 8 (3A) existing at that time provided that if a manufacturer fails to pay excise duty within 30 days from the due date of payment, the excise duty in respect of goods cleared by him in succeeding months has to be paid on consignment basis and without utilizing the Cenvat credit. 5.1 We find that the issue is no more res-integra as Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Indsur Global Ltd has already held that the provisions of Rule 8 (3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 are ultra-vires. Subsequently, appeal filed by Union of India against this order was dismissed by the Apex Court (cited supra). Therefore, we are of the view that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in para 20 of his order, justified imposition of penalty on Shri Trivedi on the ground that he had wrongly shown full payment of Excise duty in ER-1 for February-2009 (i.e. Rs. 85,52,903/- from cenvat credit and Rs. 6,38,900/- through TR6) whereas amount of Rs. 6,38,900/- was actually paid on 28.08.2009. He also admitted suppression and mis-statement regarding payment of duty of Rs. 6,38,900/- vide challan no.12 dated 16.03.2009 in monthly ER-1 return for February-2009. This amount was actually paid by them on 20th August, 2009. It therefore appears that Shri Rameshbhai Fulshakar Trivedi was fully aware about non payment of Central Excise Duty amount, still he misdeclared payment particulars in ER-1 return of February- 2009. In his stateme....