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 455 - AT - Central ExciseInterpretation of Provisions - The issue involved in the case was regarding the Interpretation of provisions of Rule 8 and more specifically Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules. 2002 - Held that:- Assesse relied upon M/s MEENAKSHI ASSOCIATES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA [2012 (6) TMI 275 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] while the Revenue relied upon GODREJ HERSHEY LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BHOPAL [2010 (11) TMI 263 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] - 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. There seems to be a narrow contradiction in the judgements of the coordinate benches in the case of Godrej Hershey Ltd. and Meenakshi Associates. The said contradiction needs to be settled by the Larger Bench and the said contradiction is (i) whether a default by an assessee has to be considered as an entire default if he does not make part payment of the duty liability in a particular month, (ii) whether penalty can be imposed under Rule 25 or Rule 27. - matter referred to larger bench.
|