M/S. Shanti Engineering vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ...
- CitationAppeal No. : E/11076-11077/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an assessee has discharged excise duty through CENVAT credit during a period of default in monthly payment under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the adjudicating authority cannot direct payment of that duty in cash through the account current without utilising the CENVAT credit, because the requirement in Rule 8(3A) to pay without utilising CENVAT credit has been held invalid by the Gujarat High Court in Indsur Global Limited v. Union of India, and an order resting on that requirement cannot be sustained.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of OIA-SRP-232-233-VAPI-2012-13 dated 29.01.2013, Passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, & S.T., Vapi)
M/s. Shanti Engineering : Appellant (s)
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vapi : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : Shri R.K. Jain, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Shri T.K. Sikdar, Authorised Representative
For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial)
1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing / Decision : 10.04.2015
ORDER No. A/10317-10318/2015 Dated 10.04.2015
Per : Mr. P.K. Das;
These appeals arising out of a common order and both are taken up together for disposal.
2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of various sizes of Copper Tubes/Pipes classifiable under Chapter 84 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were discharging duty liability on monthly basis under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. There was default of discharging duty liability. The appellants paid the duty through CENVAT account during the default period. The adjudicating authority directed them to pay the amount by cash through account current, without utilising the CENVAT credit. The issue is no more res-integra in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Indsur Global Limited vs. UOI 2014 (310) ELT 833 (Guj.). The Hon'ble High Court held that Rule 8(3A) for payment of duty without utilising CENVAT credit shall be rendered invalid.
3. In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, the impugned order can not be sustained. The impugned order is set-aside. Both the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(P.K. Das) Member (Judicial) .KL
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free