Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (5) TMI 1199 - CESTAT CHENNAI

2016 (5) TMI 1199 - CESTAT CHENNAI - TMI - Imposition of penalty - Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rule 15(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for non-compliance of Rule 8,12 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that:- with regard to imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 it is found that the Appellant has paid the tax along with interest even before the issuance of show cause notice and that there has been delay only in payment of duty by the Appellant and n .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

OURT OF INDIA], the penalty imposed under Rule 25 ibid is set aside. - With regard to imposition of penalty under Rule 15(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, it is found that the same has arisen out of the fact that the Appellant had violated Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 as regards payment of duty. I find that the law is settled as regards demand of duty/credit restriction on account of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Since Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 has been .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Sugaam Packs (hereinafter referred to as Appellant ) are engaged in manufacture of Kraft Paper. During the scrutiny of returns in ACES, it was noticed by the Department (hereinafter referred to the Respondent ) that there was discrepancy in payment of excise duty. Also, the Appellant was intimated through oral communications and vide OC No. 498/2011 that duty has to be paid on consignment wise and that CENVAT Credit was not to be utilized for such payment of duty as such credit was not availabl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for non-compliance of Rule 8,12 of Central Excise Rules, 2002,i.e. equal penalty for delayed payment of duty, INR 5,000/- for non-filing of returns within the prescribed time and Rule 3(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, equal penalty for utilization of credit when the same was not available respectively. 3. The Appellant had replied to the aforesaid notice on 19.02.2013 stating that they were not in a position to file the returns as the records were fully damaged due to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dified the penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 from ₹ 2,53,430/- to ₹ 5,000/- and had confirmed the penalty under Rule 15(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for ₹ 62,459/- besides dropping penalty amounting to ₹ 5,000/- under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant has preferred this appeal. 5. Shri R. Ravikumar, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant, while re-iterating th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s reported in 2014- TIOL-2115-HC-AHM-CX and Precision Fasteners and another versus Commissioner of Central Excise and two others reported in 2014-TIOL-2211-HC-AHM-CX; that since Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 has been struck down, imposition of penalty under Rule 15 is incorrect as they were eligible to utilize the CENVAT Credit for payment of duty; that there was contradiction in order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) as on one hand the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that there was n .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rded in Order in Appeal and had submitted that no waiver of penalty should be given to the appellant. 7. Heard both sides. The issue to be decided is whether penalties under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 are to be imposed or liable to be set aside. 8. With regard to imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 I find that the Appellant has paid the tax along with interest even before the issuance of show cause notice and that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vant extract is reproduced below: In view of the above discussion and legal position emerging therefrom, we have no hesitation in confirming the orders passed by the Tribunal and dismissing all these Appeals filed by the Revenue, by holding that there was no intention on the part of the respondent assessee to evade any payment of duty. It is only because of stringent financial condition, that the duty could not be paid in time and as soon as liquidity was available, duty was paid along with inte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ide the penalty imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 9. With regard of imposition of penalty under Rule 15(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, I find that the same has arisen out of the fact that the Appellant had violated Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 as regards payment of duty. I find that the law is settled as regards demand of duty/credit restriction on account of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. This Tribunal in the case of M/s. Varadhalakshmi Mills Ltd. And .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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