2003 (2) TMI 306 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Default in payment of excise duty in instalments under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 leading to forfeiture of the facility by the Assistant Commissioner.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Default in Payment: The case involves M/s. TBK India Pvt. Ltd. failing to pay excise duty on time, as per the details provided for October and November 2002. The Assistant Commissioner forfeited their facility to pay in instalments for two months due to these defaults, ordering duty payment consignment-wise during that period.

2. Contentions and Submissions: During the personal hearing, the appellants' representative, a Company Secretary, presented various contentions. They highlighted paying duty at a higher rate of 16% after initially paying at 9.6%, with total duty paid amounting to Rs. 1,80,950.58. The appellant also pointed out timely payment of a difference in duty for December 2002 and requested the restoration of the instalment payment facility.

3. Judicial Review: The judge carefully reviewed the case records and submissions. The appellants, being an SSI unit, inadvertently underpaid excise duty due to a change in the applicable rate. They rectified the error promptly by debiting the differential amount in their Cenvat account. The judge noted that the defaults were not related to instalment payments but to the calculation of duty, which was rectified promptly upon discovery.

4. Decision and Rationale: The judge found that the circumstances leading to the short payment were not indicative of default in paying instalments. The appellants had paid the correct duty amounts as per their calculations and rectified the underpayment promptly. Considering the lack of mala fide intention and the prompt rectification of the error, the judge set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order, allowing the appeal and reinstating the facility to pay excise duty in instalments.

5. Conclusion: The judgment favored the appellants, emphasizing that the defaults were not related to instalment payments but to the calculation of duty, promptly rectified by the appellants. The decision highlights the importance of considering the circumstances leading to payment defaults before forfeiting facilities, especially when errors are promptly rectified without any intention to evade duty obligations.