Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 313 - CESTAT BANGALOREShort Payment of Duty - Whether short-payment of duty for the month of March, 2008 would amount to “default in payment of duty - Held that:- The view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct view - Certainly non-payment in March, 2008 was a default in payment of appropriate duty for that month which attracted the provisions of Rule 8(3A) of the CER, 2002 - Consequently there was a bar on utilization of CENVAT credit for payment of duty on any excisable goods, whether final product or inputs as such, cleared from the factory in the subsequent quarter. GODREJ HERSHEY LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BHOPAL [2010 (11) TMI 263 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI ] - As far as term “default” is concerned, the same has not been defined either in the said Rules or in the Central Excise Act, 1944 - The term “default” had been defined in the Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition to mean “by its derivation, a failure - An omission of that which ought to be done. Specifically, the omission or failure to perform a legal or contractual duty”. Apparently, therefore, any omission or failure to comply with the obligation relating to payment of duty in the manner prescribed and within the period specified under Rule 8(1) of the said Rules would amount to default in payment of duty - It may be a short payment of duty or it may be total failure to pay the duty. As per the decision in CCE, Chandigarh v. Ralson Carbon Black Ltd. [2008 (3) TMI 567 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI - The assessee was bound to pay equivalent amount of duty from PLA, with interest thereon under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act - Upon such payment of duty with interest, the assessee will be entitled to recredit of the amount irregularly debited in CENVAT account at the time of clearance of inputs as such in May, 2008 – Decided against Assessee.
|