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 →

Empee Offset Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I

2015 (11) TMI 460 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Failure to pay duty - Clandestine removal of goods - Penalty u/s 11AC - Held that:- duty, which was not paid within stipulated time period, has been paid by the appellant on their own alongwith interest and the same has been declared in ER-1 return and informed separately vide letter dated 20/10/2007. The case of the appellant is squarely covered under sub section (2B) of Section 11AC. In view of this position, the department should not have issued any show cause notice on the appellant, consequ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

view that lower authority neither should have issued any show cause notice nor should have imposed penalty. Therefore, impugned order is not maintainable and hence the same is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/384/11 - Final Order No. A/2030/2015-WZB(SMB) - Dated:- 3-6-2015 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Superintendent (A.R.) ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair This appeal is dire .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pay Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 4,98,859/- by 5th of succeeding month as prescribed under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The outstanding payment of duty in respect of clearances affected in the month of May, 2007 was discharged on 27/8/2007 alongwith interest of ₹ 14, 411/- beyond the period of 30 days. Default in payment of Central Excise duty continued in month of June 2007 to July 2007. In both the instances duty was paid on 19/9/2007 and 15/10/2007 respectively i.e. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ppellants are liable for imposition of penalty as proposed in the show cause notices dated 30/9/2008. The show cause notices were adjudicated by adjudication order dated 24/9/2010 wherein following order was passed. (i) I confirm the duty amounting to ₹ 6,87,714/- and ₹ 5,64,855/- being the total Cenvat duty including Edn. Cess and Secondary and Higher Secondary Edn. Cess for the month of July, 2007 and August 2007 respectively under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Si .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t liability. (iii) I impose penalty of ₹ 6,87,714/- and 5,64,855/- (Total of ₹ 12,52,569) on them under the provisions of Rule 25(1) (a) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provided that the benefit of reduced penalty as per proviso 2 to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 shall be available to the assessee if the amount of penalty so determined is paid within the period of thirty days from the communication of this order. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

present case, the issue is only delay in payment of monthly excise duty, which has been paid alongwith interest before issuance of show cause notice. The departments case is that since, during the defaulted period the appellant was required to pay all duty on consignment basis and they have not paid on consignment basis, duty was paid on monthly basis, therefore they are liable for penalty under Rule 25 read with Section 11AC. It is his submission that there is delay in monthly duty payment bu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

declared in their monthly ER-1 return as well as appellant has intimated regarding payment separately vide their letter dated 20 Oct 2007. In this case department should not issue show cause notice. Since show cause should not have been issued, no question of imposition of penalty arises. He further submits that since all clearances were made under cover of duty paying invoices and the clearances were declared in ER-1 return, there is no malafide and suppression on the part of the appellant. Thi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

om the due date, then the clearances will be treated as without payment of duty and consequences such as fine and penalty will follow accordingly penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 25 required to be imposed. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- (a) CCE, Chennai-II Vs. Mefco Engineers (P) Ltd. [2015(317) ELT 461(Mad)] (b) Commr. of C. Ex. & Cus., Aurangabad Vs. R.R. Omerbhay Pvt. Ltd.[2011(269) ELT 46(Bom)] He submits that in view of the above judgments, Ld. Commissioner (Ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

thly ER1 return. It is also noted that for the entire defaulted period appellant have been paying the duty from PLA and not from Cenvat Account. Since the duty which was proposed in the show cause notice and confirmed in the adjudication order had been paid by the appellant alongwith interest before issuance of show cause notice and department came to know about this discrepancy only from the appellants ER-1 return and the appellant also intimated to the department separately vide latter dated .....

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