2009 (8) TMI 872 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Duty payment delay under sub-rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 1944

Analysis:
1. Issue of Duty Payment Delay: The case revolved around the duty payment delay for the months of June'05 and July'05 by the appellants. The department argued that the appellants fell under sub-rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 due to a 30-day gap between the due date and actual payment dates.

2. Appellant's Argument: The advocate for the appellants contended that they believed they could pay within a month, and technically paid on the 31st day due to July and August having 31 days. Additionally, the payment on the 30th day was not feasible as it was a government holiday. The absence of a prescribed date under sub-rule (2) was also highlighted.

3. Respondent's Stand: The JCDR for the respondent argued that the reference in sub-rule 8(3A) should be to the date prescribed in sub-rule (1), as later reflected in the Central Excise Manual.

4. Judgment: After considering both sides, the judge observed that the appellants paid on the 31st day due to technical reasons and the government holiday on the 30th day. The ambiguity in sub-rule (2) regarding the prescribed date led to the benefit of doubt being extended to the appellants. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed, emphasizing the payment made during the month.