Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 657 - AT - Central ExciseDefault in timely payment of central excise duty for the month of May 2011 in terms of Rule 8(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - contravention of the provisions of Rule 8(3A) as they have not paid duty on excisable goods consignment wise and also using only cash - Held that: - Admittedly, the appellant did not discharge their duty liability for the month of May 2011 within time as stipulated in Rule 8(1). Accordingly, the clearances made from June 2011 November 2011 utilizing cenvat credit were considered as non-duty paid clearance and the duty was confirmed with interest to be paid by cash. The appellants pleaded that the amount payable by them for the month of May 2011 was correctly worked out and reflected in ER-1 return. However, on account of calculation mistake, the amount of ₹ 23,86,456/- was debited in place of correct duty liability of ₹ 28,66,254/-. They had sufficient balance in the cenvat credit account to pay this differential duty and hence it was pleaded that it was a bona fide mistake and cannot be considered as default payment. We note that utilization of cenvat credit for discharging central excise duty during default period has been the subject matter of decisions by the Tribunal as well as various High Courts. We find that similar matters came up for decision before the Tribunal in various cases. In Steel Tubes of India Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Indore [2016 (2) TMI 684 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], it was held that the duty liability when fully discharging payment of the amount again by cash only which resulted in to re-credit of already debited credit is not necessary. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
|