9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 896X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wherein the rebate claims of the appellants were sanctioned and the rebate amount appropriated by the Assistant Commissioner against the purported demand of Rs. 23,79,098/- under Section 8 (3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of MCB/MCCB (electrical items). During the period from March, 2012 to September, 2012, there was some short payment of duty on the goods cleared due to mal-functioning in the computer software fully described as wrong link mapping in the invoicing system. The amount of short payment was discovered suo moto and calculated at Rs. 42,80,590/-, which was paid by debit to Cenvat account on 31.10.2012 and also the interest for the period, was deposited throu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeals) O-I-O No. and Date Amount of Rabate Sanctioned & appropriated 1. 79/CE/APPL/Noida/2013 dated 26.04.2013 485-R/N-IV/12-13 dated 28.02.2013 Rs.2,82,376.00 2. 80/CE/APPL/Noida/2013 dated 26.04.2013 486-R/N-IV/12-13 dated 28.02.2013 Rs. 6,61,472.00 3. 81/CE/APPL/Noida/2013 dated 26.04.2013 487-R/N-IV/12-13 dated 28.02.2013 Rs.3,87,247.00 4. 82/CE/APPL/Noida/2013 dated 26.04.2013 488-R/N-IV/12-13 dated 28.02.2013 Rs.2,95,915.00 5. 83/CE/APPL/Noida/2013 dated 26.04.2013 489-R/N-IV/12-13 dated 28.02.2013 Rs.4,77,066.00 6. 84/CE/APPL/Noida/2013 dated 26.04.2013 490-R/N-IV/12-13 dated 28.02.2013 Rs.2,75,022.00 It is further evident from the records that no opportunity was granted to the appellant before making afo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sociates Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Noida - 2012-TIOL-587-CESTAT-DEL, in the facts of delay in payment of duty and the same having been paid subsequently with interest. In such circumstances, the provision of Section 8 (3A) is attracted thereby requiring the assessee to pay duty in cash or through PLA during the period under default. 6. After considering the rival contentions, I hold that no demand under Rule 8 (3A) can be raised without service of valid show-cause notice, giving an opportunity of hearing for adjudication, the provision being penal in nature. Secondly, I hold that under the circumstances in this case being short payment of duty, the provisions of Rule 8(3A) are not attracted and the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) has erred i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
