Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 905 - CESTAT MUMBAIFailure to pay Central Excise duty while availing the benefit of CENVAT Credit - molasses - Rule 4(2) of Central Excise Rules read with Rule 8(1) of the Rules - period October 2012, December 2012 and February 2013 - levy of interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- Undisputed fact is that appellant had received molasses from three khandsari units and in terms of Rule 4 (2) read with Rule 5 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was required to pay the Central Excise Duty due on the said goods treating them as if the said goods have been manufactured by them. Rule 4 (2) and Rule 5, creates the liability to pay the Central Excise Duty on the recipient of the goods by treating them as “deemed manufacturer” of the impugned goods. These rules do not provide for the manner of payment of the duty in respect of these goods. To reject the contention in respect of the utilization of the available CENVAT Credit for payment of the duty on the molasses procured by the Appellant from the Khandsari unit, Commissioner (Appeals) has referred to Rule 2 (nna) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. In his view this rule provides for the case where the facility of payment has been extended by declaring certain process as the process of deemed manufacture for the purpose of utilization of the CENVAT Credit - From the Rule 4 (1A) and Rule 12AA (1), reproduced it is quite evident that these rules in respect of the duty payment on the job work done in respect of the specified goods. These rules do not create the liability to pay the central excise duty on the goods got processed from the job worker. These rules provide the option to pay the duty either to the job worker or to the person who gets the goods job worked. There is no aspect of the deemed manufacture described as per the said rules and the liability to pay the duty by the person getting the goods processed by the job worker is purely optional. The fact that appellant had taken the CENVAT Credit without payment of any duty has not been challenged by the appellant. Without any challenge to the said finding that appellant had availed the CENVAT Credit in respect of 3521.565 M.T. of molasses procured from Khandsari Sugar Factories in June and July 2012, without payment of any duty on the same, the entire arguments advanced by the appellant get negated. They are required to pay duty before availing the CENVAT Credit. Subsequent reversal of such credit availed without payment of any duty cannot be termed as payment of duty. The fraudulent intentions of the appellant to avail credit without payment of duty cannot be justified on the basis of the legal, submissions made by the appellant - It is settled by the decisions of this tribunal and courts that interest liability is associated with the delay in payment of duty. Appeal dismissed.
|