AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Muralidhar, Member (J)
The Department has filed the present Appeal being aggrieved by the OIO passed by the Commissioner dropping the demand of Rs. 37,84,29,240/- and Rs.22,45,87,762/-. The Department had raised the demand on the count that there was a short payment of Rs.7,07,817/- in September 2011, which was not paid within the prescribed 30 days from the due date till 31.12.2013. By not paying the Duty on consignment to consignment basis, the Respondent has contravened provisions of Rule 8(3A) of CER, 2002. The Respondent has filed Cross Objection on 19/01/2015, being aggrieved by the imposition of Rs. 5,000/- under Rule 7 of CCR, 2002.
The Respondents have produced documentary evidence towards their submission that there has been no default and they draw our attention to the findings in the OIO, wherein, it has been admitted that the amount has been paid by way of excess payment adjustment. The only noting of the Adjudicating Authority is that they have not specifically intimated before suo motto adjustment of the excess payment of Excise Duty during the next month. The Learned Counsel submits that this fact was brought to the notice of the Department by way of their ER 1 Returns. Therefore, he submits that it should be taken as proper intimation to the Department. We find that they have done so. Thus there is no occasion of contravention of Rule 8(3A) of CER, 2002 at all.
After going through the factual details and cited case law, we find no infirmity in the OIO dropping the demands. Therefore, we dismiss the Appeal filed by the Revenue.
Considering the factual details, we set aside the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed under Rule 27 of CET, 2002.
Both the Revenue Appeal and Cross Objection are disposed off thus.