2017 (12) TMI 318 - AT - Central Excise

Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) have rightly dropped the demand raised u/r 8(3A) of CER 2002? Held that - on the date SCN was issued there was no default on the part of the appellant - further SCN is issued invoking the extended limitation without there being any ground for invocation of extended period as is evident from the show cause notice - SCN not maintainable - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue-appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the demand raised under Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 was rightly dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing corrugated products, faced a demand of duty payment default for July and August 2013. The appellant failed to pay the due amount within the stipulated time, leading to a restriction on utilizing CENVAT credit for duty payments. A show cause notice was issued proposing a demand of Rs. 21,91,325 along with interest and penalty. The appellant contended that the duty was paid with interest after realizing the mistake in challan details, resulting in no revenue loss to the Department.

The appellant argued that the show cause notice, issued more than 12 months after rectifying the default, was not maintainable. The Tribunal observed that at the time of issuing the notice, there was no default on the part of the appellant. The extended limitation period was invoked without valid grounds, rendering the notice unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal in favor of the appellant, stating that the show cause notice was not maintainable. The respondent assessee was entitled to consequential benefits as per the law.

This judgment revolves around the issue of whether the demand raised under Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was rightfully dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals). The case highlights the importance of timely duty payment, the consequences of default, and the validity of show cause notices issued beyond the permissible period. The Tribunal's decision focused on the procedural aspects and the absence of grounds for invoking the extended limitation period, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.