Shri Anupam Kamboj, Director vs C.C.E. Ghaziabad

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal21 July 2015

CitationAppeal No. E/311-312/2010-EX(DB)

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where an assessee has already paid the disputed duty along with interest, proceedings under Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for denial of utilisation of the Cenvat credit account for payment of duty during the period of default cannot be sustained. A penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 remains imposable for the default in payment of duty, notwithstanding that the duty and interest have subsequently been paid, and the penalty so imposed may be confined to a nominal sum.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHIPRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IIAppeal No. E/311-312/2010-EX(DB)

[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 35/Commissioner/GZB/2009 dated 04.11.2009 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad].

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Hon'ble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the 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 the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

M/s. M/s. Baba Vishwakarma Engineering

Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Shri Anupam Kamboj, Director .Appellants

Vs.

C.C.E. Ghaziabad .Respondent

Appearance:

Shri A.P. Mathur, Advocate for the Appellant

Shri Ranjan Khanna, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Hon'ble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing: 21.07.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 52314-52315/2015-EX(DB)

Per Ashok Jindal:

The impugned order has been challenged by the appellant.

2. The case of the Revenue is that during the period 06.07.2007-15.12.2007 the appellant failed to pay duty in time. Therefore, as they have defaulted the payment of duty as per Rule 8(3)A of the Central Excise Rules 2002, the appellant is not entitled to utilize Cenvat Credit Account for payment of duty during the defaulted period. In these circumstances, demand of duty of Rs.1,58,56,152/- has been confirmed against the main appellant along with interest and penalties also imposed on both the appellants. Against the said order, the appellants are before us.

3. Heard the parties. Considered the submission.

4. As the appellant have already paid the amount in dispute along with interest, therefore, proceedings under Rule 8(3)A of Central Excise Rules, 2002 are not sustainable. But penalty under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules 2002 is imposable on the main appellant. Therefore, we set aside the penalties imposed on the appellants but confirm the penalty of Rs.5000 on the main appellant i.e. M/s. Baba Vishwakarma Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd.

5. With these terms appeals are disposed of.

0 (Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

(B. Ravichandran) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

Bhanu

E/311-312/2010-EX(DB)

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