Case Law Details
Traco Cable Company Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Respondent Central Excise (CESTAT Bangalore)
The first question as to whether the supplementary invoices relate to the date of original clearance or the date on which the supplementary invoice was raised has been decided by the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India. Accordingly, interest under Section 11AB needs to be paid by the appellant on the differential amount of duty.
On the second question of whether Cenvat credit can be utilized fo payment of duty in view of the proviso to Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, we find that the High Court of Gujarat in Advance Surfactants India Ltd. has held that this proviso is ultravires. No judgment of any other High Court or Supreme Court has been produced before us to show that a contrary view has been taken in respect of this proviso. Therefore, we find that the appellant was correct in utilizing the Cenvat credit for payment of the excise duty.
On the third question of imposition of penalty, we find from the facts of the case that the assessee has not violated any provision of the Act or the Rules to attract penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant on its own had paid the differential duty on the supplementary invoices which were raised.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
