M\/s Sri Lakshmi Prasanna Agro Paper Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam \u2013 GST
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 906 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 6-11-2018
Appeal No. E\/30484\/2018 – A\/31465\/2018
Central Excise
Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical)
\nShri D. Viswanathan, Consultant for the Appellant.
\nShri P.S. Reddy, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent.
\nORDER
\nPer: P. Venkata Subba Rao
\nFacts of the case in brief are that the appellants herein are manufacturers of printing and writing paper, newsprint and kraft paper etc., and have being paying excise duty and filing periodical returns. During the months of March, 2013 and April, 2013 there was a delay in payment of excise duty to the tune of Rs. 4,91,507\/- and 4,30,040\/- for a short period. As the delay in payment of Central Excise duty for the months of March and April 2013 is beyond the grace period of 30 days the assessee \/appellant is<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n he 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 following orders were passed including one by the CESTAT Hyderabad. Endo Labs Ltd., Shri Dheeraj Lulla Director Vs. CCE & ST [2017 (1) TMI 1604 -CESTAT New Delhi], CCE & C, Nashik-II Vs. Nasik Forge Pvt. Ltd., [2018 (9) TMI 1582- Bombay High Court] & CCE, C & ST, Hyderabad -I Vs. Sri Durga Packing Industries [2017 (6) TMI 74- CESTAT-Hyderabad]. The entire penalty was for violation of Rule 8(3A) which has been held ultra vires by the constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat which decision was followed in other decisions including the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and by this Bench<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n nd 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 Supreme Court. He further submits that this stay was not brought to the notice of the bench in other cases relied upon by the Learned Counsel. 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. However, considering overall facts of the case, I find it is fair to reduce the penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 25 from Rs. 50,000\/- to Rs. 25,000\/-. The impugned order is modified to the extent that the penalty imposed on the appellant reduced to Rs. 25,000\/-. The appeal is disposed of as herein above. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Sri Lakshmi Prasanna Agro Paper Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam \u2013 GSTCentral Excise2018 (11) TMI 906 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMICESTAT HYDERABAD – ATDated:- 6-11-2018Appeal No. E\/30484\/2018 – A\/31465\/2018Central ExciseMr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) Shri D. Viswanathan, Consultant for the Appellant. Shri P.S. Reddy, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the … Continue reading “M\/s Sri Lakshmi Prasanna Agro Paper Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam \u2013 GST”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15067","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15067","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15067"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15067\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15067"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15067"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15067"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n(Operative porti<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n