Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Su-Vi Pharmaceuticals And Chemicals ... vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 6 July, 2005
ORDER Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. The challenge in the present appeal is towards the penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- imposed upon the appellants under the provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules on the ground that the appellants were debarred from facility of fortnightly payments and was required to pay duty on consignment basis by debiting the PLA whereas they paid duty by debiting Cenvat credit in some cases.
2. The Department raised demand on this ground by taking a stand that the appellants should have paid duty from PLA instead of debiting their Cenvat account. The appellants accepted the above stand of the Revenue and immediately made good the payment from the PLA.
3. The appellants' contention, duly represented through their advocate, Shri RJ. Parakh, is that they were under the bona fide impression that duty, during such period, can also be paid through Cenvat account. However, as soon as the Revenue raised the Show Cause Notice, they paid the duty in PLA. In this view, he prays for setting aside the entire penalty imposed upon the appellants.
4. Countering the argument, Shri N.V.B. Nair, J.D.R., states that in terms of the provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001, inability to clear the consignments by debiting duty in PLA shall be deemed as if such goods have been cleared without payment of duty and the consequence of penalties as provided in these rules shall follow.
5. After considering the submissions made by both sides, I find that in terms of provisions of Rule 8, clearance of goods by debiting the Cenvat account during the period of forfeiture facility to pay in fortnightly instalments has to be treated as if the clearances have been affected without payment of duty and penal provisions have to be invoked. However, keeping in view the appellants conduct of depositing the amount in PLA, subsequently, I reduce the penalty amount from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-. But for the above modification in the quantum of penalty, the appeal is otherwise rejected.