2008 (6) TMI 501 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Delay in discharging duty liability under Rule 8(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002; Forfeiture of facility to pay duty in monthly installments; Commissioner (Appeals) modifying Adjudication Order reducing forfeiture period; Interpretation of Rule 8 regarding mandatory forfeiture period; Reduction of forfeiture facility by Commissioner (Appeals) in specific cases.

Analysis:

The judgment addresses the common issue of delayed duty payment by respondents, leading to the forfeiture of the facility to pay duty in installments. The Adjudicating Authority initially ordered a two-month forfeiture period under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) modified this order, reducing the forfeiture period for different respondents, such as M/s. Ralson Carbon Black Ltd., to three weeks and one month in various cases.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the mandatory two-month forfeiture period is not absolute, citing a previous case involving Calcom Vision Ltd. The Tribunal rejected the contention that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked the authority to reduce the forfeiture facility duration as prescribed by the Rules.

In specific cases like E/Appeal Nos. 3741, 3743-3745, and 3747/06, the respondents explained their delayed payments due to financial crises and being declared a sick unit by BIFR. The Tribunal referenced a case from the Andhra Pradesh High Court to support the argument that penalty imposition may not be justified under such circumstances. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) rightfully reduced the forfeiture period to three weeks for these cases.

Similarly, in E/Appeal Nos. 3742 and 3746/06, where respondents paid substantial amounts within the due date but had minor delays, the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the forfeiture period from two months to one month. This decision aligned with the principle of 'lex non curat de minimis,' emphasizing that minor delays should not deprive parties of the facility to pay dues in installments.

Ultimately, the judgment concludes that the appeals filed by the Revenue lack merit, leading to their rejection. The decision was dictated and pronounced in open court, providing a comprehensive resolution to the issues at hand.