AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The question of law sought to be urged in the present case is whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ("CESTAT") fell into error in omitting delayed payments of duty through Cenvat contrary to Rule 8(3A).
The brief facts are that the liability of the appellant for the month of April, 2012 - payable by 5-3-2012 was Rs. 10,10,590/- whereas the Cenvat credit was utilised to the extent of Rs. 7,10,590/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- through PLA. As such there was short payment of about Rs. 2,00,000/-. Undisputedly, the respondent had Rs. 3,27,000/- lying in its Cenvat credit. Its explanation was that there was an error in his computer system which could be detected only later. The assessee paid the balance amount of duty on 19-12-2012 together with interest. Claiming that the assessee was bound to discharge full liability on a month to month basis along with penalty and interest, the assessing authorities sought to recover those amounts by applying Rule 8(3A). The CESTAT by its impugned order noticed that rule itself was declared unconstitutional and set aside in Indsur Global Ltd. v. UOI - 2014 (310) E.L.T. 833 (Guj.), a decision which had been followed subsequently by Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sandley Industries v. UOI - 2015 (326) E.L.T. 256 (P & H) and Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. UOI - 2015 (323) E.L.T. 489 (Mad.).
We notice that there is absolutely no dispute about two critical elements, i.e., firstly that there was about Rs. 3.27 lakhs lying to the credit of the assessee in its Cenvat account and secondly he in fact did pay the amount claiming that the short payment was due to oversight.
Having regard to these facts and the circumstance that Rule 8(3A) itself has been struck down and is no longer in existence, which we entirely concur with, we find no infirmity with the CESTAT''s order. No question of law arises. The appeal is consequently dismissed.