Case Law Details
Commissioner Vs DRD Body Techs India Pvt. Ltd (Telangana High Court)
Conclusion: Rule 8(3A) applied to cases where assessee had defaulted in payment of excise duty beyond 30 days from the due date and it did not apply to every case where in the department, during the scrutiny of returns, during audit or during investigation found any additional amount payable as duty of excise. Tribunal had given cogent reasons for its finding that assessee’s case was a case of demand under Section 11A and was not covered by Rule 8(3A) and the Revenue was not correct in denying utilization of Cenvat Credit to the assessee by applying the said sub-rule.
Held: Assessee-company was engaged in bodybuilding i.e. it procured chassis manufactured by M/s Ashok Leyland and build the body completing it into a truck for the customers. The respondent was registered with the Central Excise Department and filing ER-1 returns and paying central excise duty. It was alleged by Revenue that the invoice value of the clearances for the following months was more than the value on which duty of excise was discharged. According to the appellant department, the respondent was required allegedly to clear the short paid amount pertaining to the month of November 2006 along with interest by January 5, 2007, as stipulated under Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, and the said short paid amount was paid along with interest on December 26, 2009. It was held that admittedly assessee had already paid as duty even before the audit declared amounts as payable. Rule 8(3A) applied to cases where assessee had defaulted in payment of excise duty beyond 30 days from the due date. So, the said rule could not apply to the instant case and as rightly held by the CESTAT, the said Rule did not apply to every case where in the department, during the scrutiny of returns, during audit or during investigation finds any additional amount payable as duty of excise. Such demands would be recoverable by issuing a notice under Section 11A of the Act and would be covered under Rule 8(3A). Tribunal had given cogent reasons for its finding that assessee’s case was a case of demand under Section 11A and was not covered by Rule 8(3A) and the Revenue was not correct in denying utilization of Cenvat Credit to the assessee by applying the said sub-rule. Thus, Tribunal rightly set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent and also the demand imposed on the respondent under Rule 8(3A).
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
This appeal is filed under sub-Section (1) of Section 35H of the Central Excise Act 1944 challenging the Final Order No. A/30845/2020 dt.21.02.2020 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Regional Bench, Hyderabad (for short ‘CESTAT’).
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
