2018 (9) TMI 1123 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Recovery of the duty paid from the CENVAT account with interest – Penalties – Held that:- The period involved is prior to 31.3.2005 on which date the non-obstante clause was introduced in Rule 8, wherein there has been a restriction imposed for paying duty liability using the CENVAT account when there is a delay in payment of duty – appeal dismissed – decided against Revenue. – Appeal No. E/380/2009 – Final Order No. 42036/2018 – Dated:- 18-7-2018 – Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Appellant Shri M. Kannan, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The above appeal is filed by the department against
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
posed penalty of ₹ 25,000/- under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the same. Hence department is now before the Tribunal. 3. On behalf of Revenue, ld. AR Shri S. Govindarajan reiterated the grounds of appeal. 4. On behalf of the respondent, ld. counsel Shri M. Kannan submitted that under Rule 8(4) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, as it stood then, the assessee is required to pay excise duty for each consignment by debit to the current account and hence the assessee can pay the differential through CENVAT account. The respondents had the facility of payment of differential duty and paid the same through their CENVAT account for which the show cause notice was issued. He submitted that dur
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
. The period involved in the present appeal is prior to 31.3.2005 on which date the non-obstante clause was introduced in Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The period involved is prior to 31.3.2005 on which date the non-obstante clause was introduced in Rule 8, wherein there has been a restriction imposed for paying duty liability using the CENVAT account when there is a delay in payment of duty. The issue being settled by the decisions relied by the ld. counsel for respondent, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), who has relied the decision of the Larger Bench. The appeal filed by Revenue is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. (Operative portion of the order
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =