Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 573 - CESTAT MUMBAIDemand of Interest - Clearance of certain inputs as such declaring lesser assessable value resulting in short payment of duty than the cenvat credit availed on the said inputs - Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- In the present case undisputedly the appellants have availed the CENVAT credit as was admissible to them on the inputs received by them. However, at the time of clearance of the said inputs as such, they have short paid the amounts required to be paid by them in terms of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellants have short paid the amounts at the time of clearance of the goods. The case of short payment of the amounts at the time of clearance of goods is akin to the case of short payment of duty on the goods of own manufacture when cleared by the appellants. Such cases need to be handled accordingly. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that in the case of short payment of duty at the time of clearance of the goods, the liability to pay interest on the same shall be absolute and there can be no denial of the same - Reference is made to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS INTERNATIONAL AUTO LTD. [2010 (1) TMI 151 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that Explanation (2) to sub-section 2(B) of section 11A ibid states that payment by assesees in default by own ascertainment or as ascertained by C.E. officer not exempt from interest chargeable under section 11AB ibid. Interest leviable for loss of revenue on any count. Accrual of price differential duty when paid after clearance, it indicates short payment/ short levy on date of removal hence interest become leviable. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellants were made aware in 2008 about the default in short payment of amount. However, they continued with the practice and have showed a willful intention to not act as per the provisions of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. In such situation, invocation of extended period is justified and needs to be upheld. The decision of CHANDRAPUR MAGNET WIRES (P) LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF C. EXCISE, NAGPUR [1995 (12) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT] relied upon by the appellants is altogether in different context and has no applicability to the facts of the present case as in the said it was held that the claim for exemption of duty on the disputed goods cannot be denied on the plea that the assessee has taken credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in manufacture of these goods. In favour of assessee.
|