9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- under Rule 25(1)(a) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The appellant is engaged in manufacture of biscuits which are subject to excise duty. They have been clearing their final product on payment of excise duty by way of adjustment against their Cenvat credit account and cash payment. Period of dispute is from March 2009 to October 2009. 3. The department issued a show cause notice to the appellant raising the duty demand of Rs. 2,10,87,816/- on the premise that during the disputed period, the appellant has defaulted in payment of excise duty beyond 30 days from the due date as prescribed under Rule 8(3A), as such, he was supposed to pay the excise duty in cash consignment and not by way of adjustment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubject matter of show cause notice occurred due to clerical error and those defaults are negligible as compared to the duty paid to raise an inference that there could be no intention on the part of the appellant to evade the payment of excise duty. Thus, it is argued that Rule 8 (3A) is not attracted as such the impugned order is not sustainable. Learned Counsel has thus pleaded that the appellant has strongly prima facie for waiver and submitted that if the appellant is directed to make pre-deposit of such a huge amount, it will undue hardship to the appellant. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the appellant has referred to Final Order No. A/60/2012-EX(BR), dated 25-1-2012 of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal. In our f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of excise duty is negligible as compared to the amount of duty paid for respective months. Undisputedly, the shortfall was made good by the appellant after it was brought to his notice. The question arise whether Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is attracted only in cases of intentional default as it would be attracted in cases of unintended inadvertent default also. This issue requires serious consideration particularly when two co-ordinate benches of this Tribunal have taken contradictory view on the issue. Thus, we are of the view that the appellant has a strong arguable case, as such, he has a prima facie case. As compared to the amount of default, the amount of duty confirmed against the appellant is too huge, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
