9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de his letter dated 8-2-2002 issued in C.No. IV/11/2003/STAT/2000/592 consequent to the third default in duty payment in the financial year 2001-02 by the appellants. This was served on the appellants on 11-2-2002. The deferred payment facility was barred till such date on which all the dues are paid or for a period of two months, whichever is later. The dues along with interest have been paid on 25-9-2003. The appellants have cleared certain goods from 25-7-2003 to 25-9-2003 without debiting the duty due on consignment-wise basis, although shown as if paid consignment-wise. The appellants have paid the duty in their RG 23A as well as PLA at later dates. The Asst. Commissioner has confirmed the demand and imposed penalty vide the impugned o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise Rules, 2001 and the Original Adjudicating authority has rightly confirmed the demand and imposed suitable penalty. I don't find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly I pass the following order." 3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the entire order-in-appeal is incorrect and during the period appellants effected the clearance of the products by debiting the amount in the RG23A Part-II. It is his submission that the appellant was facing severe financial crunch and the appellant was declared sick and had to shut down the unit and therefore was unable to pay even the salaries of the staff and security staff which resulted in non-payment of duty within time. It is his submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A part-II is also to be accepted as duty discharged, even after forfeiting of the payment of duty fortnightly. In view of this, we hold that the duty amount paid by the appellant in RG23A Part-II has to be considered as discharged duty liability. 8. Coming to the invoking the provisions of interest, we find that the interest is payable as appellant has not discharged the duty liability within time. We uphold the order of the lower authorities to the extent the interest liability has been confirmed. 9. As regards imposition of penalty, we find that the Adjudicating authority has imposed equal penalty under the provisions of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. We find that the violat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
