TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 664X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in their written submissions submitted on the date of hearing. The issue relating to the Rectification of Mistake under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was examined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur, Mumbai v. RDC Concrete (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2011 (8) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and observed that a mistake apparen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order which includes demand of duty and penalty. He also submits that in this case they have paid the duty from CENVAT account. He submits that in terms of Rule 8(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 payment through CENVAT account is sufficient for discharging the duty liability due. He relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Solar Chemferts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE -2012 (276) ELT 273, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idering the submission of both sides waived the penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 but confirmed the penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 and disposed of the appeal in the said terms. It appears from the order of the Tribunal that the applicant did not argue on the issue of payment of duty from the CENVAT account during the relevant period. The Tribunal in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
