2002 (8) TMI 837 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order passed by Deputy Commissioner regarding payment of central excise duty.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-Rural-I, Ahmedabad-II, regarding the payment of central excise duty. The petitioners were discharging duty on a fortnightly basis but sometimes did not have sufficient balance in their outstanding duty on due dates. The show cause notice issued to them called for recovery of outstanding duty, interest, and imposition of penalty for contravention of certain rules. The Additional Commissioner held that the payment of outstanding duty along with interest did not involve any irregularity. However, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order stating that the petitioners had defaulted in payment and forfeited the facility to pay dues in instalments for a period of two months. The petitioners argued that the scheme had changed, causing a delay of a few days, which was addressed by the Additional Commissioner in a previous order. The revenue contended that under Rule 49(e)(ii), three defaults in a financial year lead to forfeiture of the instalment facility.

The Court noted that the impugned order was based on the same facts as the show cause notice and the Additional Commissioner's order. The delay in payment was nominal, and interest had been paid at 24%. The Additional Commissioner's explanation clarified that no prejudice was caused to the revenue due to the short delay. The principle of "Lex non curat de minimis" was applied, emphasizing that the law does not care for trifles. The Court held that the petitioners should not have been deprived of the facility to pay dues in instalments based on the facts. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed and set aside.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the challenge to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner regarding the payment of central excise duty. The Court considered the delay in payment, application of the principle of "Lex non curat de minimis," and the change in the scheme affecting the petitioners' ability to pay dues in instalments. The decision favored the petitioners, allowing their challenge and setting aside the impugned order.