Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2024 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 688 - CESTAT MUMBAIRecovery of amount already discharged as duties of central excise for the period from March 2011 to July 2011 by debit of CENVAT balance - assessee had not been subjected to the requirement of rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - HELD THAT:- There is a clear finding that, in view of all declarations having been made and the deficiency noted therefrom, none of the ingredients permitting imposition of penalty under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 were existent. The appeal has not controverted this finding. The impugned order also found that the stipulation on manner of payment of duty has been breached for March 2011 to July 2011 but that, in the absence of recovery mechanism in Central Excise Rules, 2002, only penal consequences may arise. This, too, has not been controverted in the appeal. It was also held that the disputed amount, as arrears of duty, was payable either by deposit or debit of CENVAT balance in much the same way as regular discharge of duty liability. The grounds of appeal put forth the unheard of, and perverse, proposition that law, in the form of Act and Rules, will always prevail over judgements; apparently, these worthies are unaware that law comprises streams which include legislated statutes and judge-rendered opinions. They also seem to be in ignorance of interpretative function which vests exclusively in the judicial institutions. If that is the comprehension of law among enforcers of an enactment that is also the author of their being, it is a saddening to those who believe in rule of law. Indeed, Montesquieu, and several of those who followed, would surely be turning over in their graves at this patent disrespect for this fundamental foundation of rule of law. The impugned order has directed that duty discharge must be accompanied by interest. There is no appeal against that part of the order - there are no reason to interfere with impugned order - appeal dismissed.
|