TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oresaid amount of Rs. 2,16,472/- should have been paid towards duty by debit in PLA. The appellant has not debited equivalent amount or any part thereof in PLA at any later stage. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that they have since wound up their business and surrendered registration certificate to the department. These facts, however, have not been stated in the memo of appeal or t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h of December 2009, duty of Rs. 1,47,032/- was payable without interest by 5/1/2010 or with interest by 5/2/2010. The said amount was paid with interest on 7/5/2010. As per Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules 2002, the appellant should not have utilized CENVAT credit for payment of duty on the goods cleared between 5/1/2010 and 7/5/2010. During this period, they ought to have paid duty consignm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to the department. These facts, however, have not been stated in the memo of appeal or the stay application despite the fact that the surrender of registration certificate occurred prior to filing of the appeal. Even in the context of pleading financial hardships in the stay application, the appellant chose not to mention the above facts. Be that as it may, the fervent plea of financial hardship ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
