M/S Neesa Infrastructure Ltd vs Cce Ahmedabad-Ii

Appeal No.E/10177/2014-DB; Application No.E/Stay/10268/2014 [Arising out of OIO No.AHM-EXCUS-002-COMMR-034, dt.23.10.2013, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs,Ahmedabad-II]

M/s Neesa Infrastructure Ltd. Appellant

Vs

CCE Ahmedabad-II Respondent

Represented by:

For Revenue : Shri Alok Srivastava, Dy.Commissioner (AR).

For Assessee: Shri R.D. Bhatt, Advocate

For approval and signature:

Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial) Mr. R.K. Singh, Honble Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?

CORAM:

MR. P.K. DAS, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MR. R.K. SINGH, HONBLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:16.01.2015

Order No. A/10088 / 2015, dt.16.01.2015

Per: P.K. Das

1. As the issue lies in narrow compass, after disposing the stay application, we take up the appeal for hearing.

2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots, CS Castings, M.S. Angles, PMT Bars etc, falling under Chapter 72 and 73 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants failed to discharge the monthly payment of duty for the months March 2012 to June 2012 within the due date. It has been alleged that the appellants contravened the provisions of Rule 8 (3A) of Central Excise Rules 2002, insofar as during the defaulted period, they have not paid the duty consignment-wise from PLA by cash. They paid the duty through CENVAT account. By the adjudication order, the Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty in cash alongwith interest and penalty.

3. We find that the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of Indsur Global Ltd Vs Union of India  2014 (310) ELT 833 (Guj.) held that Rule 8 (3A) of Central Excise Rules 2002 is unconstitutional.

4. In view of that, we set aside the impugned order. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed with consequential relief. However, Revenue is at liberty to demand interest for failure to pay duty on each consignment at the time of removal of goods till the date of the appellant pays the outstanding dues in terms of Rule 8 (3A) of the said Rules 2002. Stay application is disposed of.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(R.K. Singh) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) cbb 2