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

2016 (9) TMI 480 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (9) TMI 480 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Quantification of demand - demand of ₹ 11,33,711/- is not part of the total demand of ₹ 50,98,279/- Held that:- it is found that the duty demand of ₹ 50,98,279/- pertains to the period 05.08.2006 to 31.07.2007, when the assessee cleared the goods in contravention of the provisions of Rule 8(3A) ibid, whereas, the duty demand of ₹ 11,33,711/- pertains to the period June, 2006 and July, 2006, which was not proposed for recovery in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

essee was required to pay the excise duty for each consignment at the time of removal. The fact is not under dispute that out of the central Excise duty amount of ₹ 50,98,279/- payable under Rule 8(3A) ibid, the assessee had paid ₹ 7,16,712/- from PLA and the balance amount of ₹ 43,81,567/- from the Cenvat account with interest for delayed payment. So far as the restrictions contained in Rule 8(3A) ibid that Cenvat credit cannot be utilised for payment of duty on removal of goo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ough PLA and Cenvat account along with interest, in our considered view, such payment is in conformity with the provisions of Rule 8(3A) of the Rules. - Imposition of penalty - non-payment of duty consignment-wise - Held that:- there is contravention of Rule 8(3A) of the Rules, for which the penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the Rules is justified. However, considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that penalty imposed in the adjudication order is on the high .....

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 well as the assessee have filed appeals before this Tribunal. 2. The grievance of Revenue is that Cenvat demand of ₹ 11,33,711/- dropped in the impugned order is not a part of demand of ₹ 50,98,279/- proposed for recovery in the Show Cause Notice. Thus, the benefit of Cenvat demand to the extent of ₹ 11,33,711/- shall not be available to the assessee and the entire demand of ₹ 50,98,279/- proposed in the Show Cause Notice is required to be paid by the assessee. 3. The .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. To support the above stand, the appellant has relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court delivered in the case of Indsur Global Ltd. Vs. Union of India, reported in 2014 (310) ELT 833 (Guj.). 4. Heard the ld. counsel for both sides and perused the records. Both sides agree that the demand of ₹ 11,33,711/- is not part of the total demand of ₹ 50,98,279/- confirmed in the impugned order. We find that the duty demand of ₹ 50,98,2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aking payment of duty beyond thirty days from the due date. Thus, the provisions of sub-rule (3A) of Rule 8 ibid are applicable to the facts of the case, according to which the assessee was required to pay the excise duty for each consignment at the time of removal. The fact is not under dispute that out of the central Excise duty amount of ₹ 50,98,279/- payable under Rule 8(3A) ibid, the assessee had paid ₹ 7,16,712/- from PLA and the balance amount of ₹ 43,81,567/- from the 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

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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