Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Supermax Personal Care Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax (Ltu) , Mumbai

2015 (10) TMI 965 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Waiver of pre deposit - Section 35F - Debit made in CENVAT Credit account - Mandatory pre deposit - Held that:- The entire dispute in the case relates to the incorrectness of the utilisation of the amount used from CENVAT account. The order of the Commissioner clearly does not recognize the payments made through said account and orders payment in cash. In view of the fact that the Rule 8(3A) as well as the order of the Commissioner clearly distinguishing between the payment in cash with payment .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aju, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri Prasad Paranjape, Adv For the Respondent : Shri Hitesh Shah, Comm (AR) ORDER Per Raju 1. The appellants are an LTU engaged in the manufacture of shaving systems and safety razor blades. They have six factories, located at among other places, in Thane and Hyderabad. The factory at Thane failed to pay a part of the duty amounting to ₹ 1,92,64,263/- in the month of January 2013. Thereafter they paid Central Excise duty in cash on each clearance after 7 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

unt on 26/03/2013. They paid the interest of ₹ 4,56,009/- in cash. The revenue was of the view that the reversal of the credit made in the CENVAT account in the month of March was not a proper payment of duty and hence the default which started in January, continued. Accordingly, a demand notice under rule 8 (3A) was issued in respect of entire clearances from 26.03.2013 to 31.12.2013. An amount of ₹ 31,85,56,189/- was demanded to be paid in cash. The appellants had already paid this .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion 35F of the Central Excise act 1944. 3. The appellants have pleaded that they have paid the entire amount from their CENVAT account and hence hundred percent of the duty demanded stands paid. In the circumstances they are not required to deposit any additional amount, i.e. amount required under Section 35F. For this purpose they relied on the circular of the CESTAT issued on 28.08.2014. In the said circular it is prescribed that if the mandatory deposit the duty confirmed is made from the CEN .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt compliance for the purpose of section 35F. In the said case the Commissioner had ordered deposit of the said amount in cash. The appellant's also relied on the decision of Tribunal in case of Meenakshi Associates - 2013 (295) ELT 578. In the said judgement following has been held - 16. For the sake of clarity we would like to add some more observations on this issue. Non-payment of excise duty arises often in administration of excise levy. Show Cause Notices are issued in such cases as pe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vat credit is not a proper discharge of duty liability. This prohibition gets lifted the moment the default is made good along with appropriate interest on defaulted amount and normal situation is restored. So payments made through Cenvat credit during the defaulting period also becomes good payment once the default is made good by paying the defaulted amount along with interest. Interest on deemed non-payment of duty on clearances during the period of default is a separate consequence but not c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ose of maintainability only section 35F can be considered. He argued that in view of Section 35F (ii) the appeal of the appellants cannot be entertained unless appellants deposit specified amount in terms of Section 35F. He argued that if any cognizance is taken of the reversal of amounts made in the CENVAT account it would amount to entertainment of appeals and pronouncement on the merits of the appeal. For this purpose he relied on the decision of Tribunal in case of CIRON Drugs and Pharmaceut .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

014 the Tribunal came to the conclusion that since the said amounts claimed to be adjusted against the pre-deposit are themselves part of the dispute, the same cannot be considered towards as deposit under Section 35F. The learned AR also argued that no notice of the circular issued by the registrar of CESTAT can be taken as neither has authority to issue the same nor it says by which authority it has been issued. Learned AR also brought to our notice the judgement of Hon Supreme Court in case o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

21) ELT 328, are on the merits of the case. The decision of Hon Supreme Court in case of Jayaswal Neco Civil Appeal No. 1468 of 2004, Civil Appeal No. 7386 of 2005 creates a doubt on the issue. In case of Jayaswal Neco -Civil Appeal No. 1468 of 2004, Civil Appeal No. 7386 of 2005 Hon Supreme Court has observed as under: 22. This provision came up for interpretation before at least four High Courts and all these Courts took the view that even when the facility is withdrawn for making payment in i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as per rule 173G (1)(b) also the payment utilising Cenvat credit is an approved manner of payment of duty by these rules. It is equally true that even in the absence of such a provision contained in Rule 173G (1)(b) accepting the mode of payment utilising Cenvat credit, an assessee, even by virtue of the provisions contained under Rule 49 read with Rule 57A, will be entitled to utilise such input credit. In other words, there is force in the contention of the assessee that Rule 173G does not giv .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

see a defaulter and to deny him the benefit of utilising the input credit will become unworkable and ineffective. It has to be noticed as rightly pointed by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the rule making authority took notice of this lacuna and by the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - second amendment 2005, which came into force from 1st April, 2005, the Central Excise Rules 2002 was amended and Rule 3A was inserted which reads as follows: "If the assessee defaults in payment of d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eof are paid, whichever is later, and during this period notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (4) of rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the assessee shall be required to pay excise duty for each consignment by debit to the account current and in the event of any failure, it shall be deemed that such goods have been cleared without payment of duty and the consequences and penalties as provided in these rules shall follow." 24. It is for the first time that a non obstantive clause .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erred by a separate rule since even without Rule 173G by virtue of Rule 49 read with Rule 57A a right has already conferred on the assessee to utilise the input credit for payment of duty at the time of discharging his liability to pay duty on the final product as provided for in the rules." 23. Not only we are in agreement with the aforesaid view taken by the High Courts, it is imperative to point out that even the Department accepted the aforesaid opinion of the High Courts. For this reas .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

credence to our view which we have taken in respect of unamended provision that was applicable at the relevant time. From this it appears that the views of Hon Supreme Court on this issue are different from those of Hon High Court. Thus the law on the issue does not appear to be settled. 7. The short question to be decided is if the CENVAT debits made by the appellants during the period of default are sufficient for the purpose of section 35F. Tribunal, in the case of PMT machines (order number .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version