SRI LAKSHMI PRASANNA AGRO PAPER INDUSTRIES LIMITED Versus CCT, VISAKHAPATNAM GST
Central Excise
2019 (2) TMI 750 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 25-1-2019
APPEAL No. E\/30483\/2018 – A\/30110\/2019
Central Excise
Mr. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
\nShri D. Viswanathan, Consultant for the Appellant.
\nShri N. Bhanu Kiran, Asst. Commissioner \/AR for the Respondent.
\nORDER
\nPer: Mr. P.V. Subba Rao
\n1. This appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. VIZ-EXCUS- 002-APP-097-17-18, Dated 21.12.2017. Ld. Consultant appeared for the appellant submits that the issue involved in the present case is that the appellants defaulted in payment of central excise duty during the months of January 2012 and October 2012. They did not pay the amount of duty within 30 days from the due date as required. Accordingly, in terms of Rule 8 (3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, they are required to pay duty in respect of clearances after this 30 days grace<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n , who vide the impugned order, rejected the appeal and upheld the Order-in-Original. Hence, this appeal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n very small and the same has already been paid with interest. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" SRI LAKSHMI PRASANNA AGRO PAPER INDUSTRIES LIMITED Versus CCT, VISAKHAPATNAM GSTCentral Excise2019 (2) TMI 750 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMICESTAT HYDERABAD – ATDated:- 25-1-2019APPEAL No. E\/30483\/2018 – A\/30110\/2019Central ExciseMr. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri D. Viswanathan, Consultant for the Appellant. Shri N. Bhanu Kiran, Asst. Commissioner \/AR for the Respondent. ORDER Per: Mr. … Continue reading “SRI LAKSHMI PRASANNA AGRO PAPER INDUSTRIES LIMITED Versus CCT, VISAKHAPATNAM 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-16753","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16753","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=16753"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16753\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16753"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16753"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16753"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. Ld. Counsel submits that the issue in the present appeal is limited to the penalties imposed under the above two rules. A penalty of Rs. 50,000\/- was imposed for violating the Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. This rule itself has been struck down by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Indsur Global Limited vs. Union of India [2014(12)TMI 585 (Guj.)]. On an appeal by Union of India, this judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has been stayed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in [2016(335)ELT A109 (SC)]. However, the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has not been quashed or set aside by Hon'ble Apex Court and only its operation has been stayed. It is his assertion that in such circumstances, the ratio of the judgment would still apply and Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 will continue to be inoperative. In support of his argument on this poi<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Ld. DR reiterates the findings of the lower authority and argues that the impugned order needs to be upheld.
\n5. I have considered the arguments on both sides and perused the records. The issue falls in a very narrow compass. As far as the penalty imposed for violation of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is concerned, I find that Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has struck down this Rule and the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has been stayed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Space Telelink Limited (supra) held that the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat would still apply notwithstanding the fact that it has been stayed by Hon'ble Apex Court. It has been held that only the operation of the judgment is stayed and not the underlying basis of the judgment itself.
\n6. In view of the above, I find that the penalty imposed under Rule 25(1)(a) of Central <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n