TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CENVAT credit has been rendered infructuous as also the appropriateness of the said amount in the order of the original authority. Therefore, all that remains insofar this appeal is concerned are the penalties imposed under rule 15(2) and rule 25 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 to which reference may be made here. In view of the fact payment had been made in full along with interest before the issue of show cause notice the penalties imposed by the original authority and affirmed in the impugned order are set aside Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/983/2011 - A/90633/17/SMB - Dated:- 10-11-2017 - Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Bhupendra Pal Singh, Advocate for the appellant Shri SV Nair, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER M/s Indrox Global Pvt Ltd is in appeal against confirmation of recovery of CENAT credit amounting to ₹ 2,77,552/-, imposition of penalty of like amount under rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and further penalty of ₹ 37,58,471/- under rule 25 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 for contravention of rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules 2002 by impugned order-in-appeal no. RBT/86/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Indsur Global Ltd v. Union of India [2014 (310) ELT 833 (Guj.)] had declared rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules 2002 to be ultra vires. 4. Learned Authorised Representative relies on the decision of the Tribunal in Shivam Pressings v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune I [2015 (326) ELT 351 (Tri.-Mumbai)] and upon Meghdoor Gramoudyog Sewa Sansthan v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida [2014 (312) ELT 699 (Tri.-Del.)] to contend that, for contraventions specified in rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, mere contravention alone is sufficient for owing strict liability requirements. 5. It is clear from the records that appellant had defaulted in the payment of dues during the months of May, August and September, 2007 and that the privilege of consolidated monthly discharge of duty liability was no longer available to them till November 2007 when the outstanding were erased. These facts are not disputed by appellant. Cognizance was taken of those derelictions about nine months later when the show cause notice for recovery was issued. It is also admitted by the appellant that ₹ 2,77,552/- that had been paid by debiting CENVAT credit account was made good b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t would appear from a plain reading of the above that monitoring or regulatory role by the tax authority is not envisaged within the said rule. Being a measure of self-regulation the onus of compliance thereto by abstaining from recourse to privilege of consolidated payment rests upon the assesse. The appellant has in the present instance failed to comply with this requirement of law. The tax authorities, too, failed to initiate action for recovery of outstandings promptly. 8. The primary contention of the appellant which relies upon the decision in re Empee Offset Pvt Ltd is that the provisions of section 11A(2b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 renders the notice itself to be untenable. Though the appellant had debited CENVAT account for discharging a portion of the duty liability that transaction had been received subsequently. The proposal in the show cause notice show cause notice for recovery of the amount paid through debit in CENVAT credit has been rendered infructuous as also the appropriateness of the said amount in the order of the original authority. Therefore, all that remains insofar this appeal is concerned are the penalties imposed under rule 15(2) and rule 25 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on who is liable to pay duty as determined under sub-section (2) of section 11a, shall also be liable to pay a penalty equal to the duty so determined. Provided that where such duty as determined under sub-section (2) of section 11a, and the interest payable thereon under Section 11AB, is paid within thirty days from the date of communication of the order of the Central Excise Officer determining such duty, the amount of penalty liable to be paid by such person under this section be twenty-five per cent of the duty so determined; Provided further that the benefit of reduced penalty under the first proviso shall be available if the amount of penalty so determined has also been paid within the period of thirty days referred to in that proviso: Provided also that where the duty determined to be payable is reduced or increased by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, the Court, then, for the purposes of this Section, the duty, as reduced or increased, as the case may be, shall be taken into account. Provided also that in case where the duty determined to be payable is increased by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellate Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
