Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 1272 - AT - Central ExciseDuty short paid - Demand of interest and penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - payment of differential duty - period of limitation - Held that:- Held that:- Under the Central Excise Act, the normal period of limitation for demand of duty short levied or not levied, etc. is one year. Now the question is how does or from what date the said period of one year should be computed. The appellant herein was asked by the Regular Bench to file copies of the monthly excise returns so that it can be ascertained when and whether they had intimated the fact of short payment of duty; however, the appellant was unable to produce copies of the said returns. In the absence of any such evidence led by the appellant, it can be safely presumed that the fact of short payment of duty was brought to the notice of the department only in the monthly returns filed after payment of differential duty. In the present case, it is a fact on record that the short payments were made good only on 30-6-2002 and 6-12-2002 and therefore, these details would be available only in the returns filed in July, 2002 and January, 2003. The show cause notice having been issued in October, 2003, the demand in respect of payment made in December, 2002, is clearly within the normal period of limitation of one year and hence, the demand of interest in respect of this payment is clearly sustainable. Though a contention has been raised that since the issue pertained to interpretation of the statute, imposition of penalty is not warranted is not agreed for the simple reason that it is not the case of the appellant that he was not liable to pay interest. The only contention is that the notice was not issued in time. It should be remembered that the appellant is operating in a “self-assessment of tax” regime and therefore, a greater responsibility is cast on him to comply with the requirements of law. Rule 27 imposing general penalty does not require any mens rea on the part of the assessee and mere default will suffice to attract its provisions Thus the interest on the duty paid in December 2002 is upheld. Penalty imposed under Rule 27 for default in payment of interest is also upheld. As far as the interest on the duty paid in May is concerned, the same is set aside.
|