2009 (1) TMI 682 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 8(3A) regarding the forfeiture period for default in payment of duty in monthly instalments.
2. Whether the forfeiture period for each instance of default runs concurrently or continuously.
3. Validity of reducing the forfeiture period from 10 months to 2 months by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute where the Respondent failed to pay duty in monthly instalments for several months, leading to the issuance of five show cause notices. The Assistant Commissioner forfeited the facility of monthly duty payment for 10 months. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced it to 2 months after the Respondent paid all dues with interest. The main issue was the interpretation of Rule 8(3A) concerning the forfeiture period.

2. The Departmental Representative argued that the Respondent should suffer a forfeiture period of two months for each default instance, totaling 10 months. On the other hand, the Respondent's Counsel contended that the forfeiture period should run concurrently for each default instance. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and relevant case laws to resolve this issue.

3. The Tribunal examined the language of Rule 8(3A) and concluded that the forfeiture period should be two months or until the full duty with interest is paid, whichever is later. Since the Respondent paid all dues with interest, albeit after the grace period, the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly reduced the forfeiture period to two months. The Tribunal upheld the decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal clarified the interpretation of Rule 8(3A) regarding the forfeiture period for default in monthly duty payments. The decision highlighted that the forfeiture period should not run continuously for each default instance and affirmed the reduction of the period by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the timely payment of dues with interest by the Respondent.