2018 (11) TMI 906 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI – Delay in payment of excise duty – invocation of Rule 8 (3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 – confiscation of goods so removed under Rule 25(1)(a) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 – case of appellant is that that Rule 8(3A) has already been read down by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat and hence the demand is not sustainable – Held that:- The judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Indsur Global Ltd. has been appealed against and has been stayed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as reported at [2014 (11) TMI 1101 – SUPREME COURT] – The stay granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court leaves me with no option was to hold that the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court does not apply.
–
Considering the overall facts, the quantum pf penalty is reduced – appeal allowed in part. – Appeal No. E/30484/2018 – A/31465/2018 – Dated:- 6-11-2018 – Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) Shri D. Viswanathan, Consultant for the Appellant. Shri
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
(1)(a) for contravention of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. After following due process, the lower authority imposed a penalty of ₹ 50,000/- on the appellant for removal of excisable goods in contravention of the provisions of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Rules 4(1) and 6 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved, the appeal preferred before the First Appellate Authority who, vide the impugned order, upheld the decision of the lower authority and rejected the appeal. 2. Learned Consultant for the appellant submits that the only dispute is with respect to the imposition of penalty under Rule 25 for violation of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. He would submit that these Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules 2002, has been read down by the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Indsur Global Ltd., Vs. Union of India [2014 (12) TMI 585 – Gujarat High Court]. Relying on this judgment of Hon ble High Court of Gujarat, the fol
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ble High Court of Gujarat does not apply any longer. He also submits that in the case laws which were cited including the decision by the CESTAT-Hyderabad Bench in the case of M/s Sri Durga Packing Industries the fact that the Hon ble Apex Court has stayed the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat was not brought to the notice of the Bench and hence was not considered. 4. I have considered the arguments on both sides and perused the records. There is no dispute regarding the facts of the case that there was violation of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules which rendered the goods is liable to confiscation and the appellant is liable to penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The only point on which the Learned Consultant argues is that Rule 8(3A) has already been read down by the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat and hence the demand is not sustainable. Learned Departmental Representative rightly points out that this decision has been stayed by the Hon ble Supr
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =