9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. These two appeals arise out of the common Order-in-Appeal dated 18-5-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal No. E/1815/01-NB has been filed by the assessee for challenging the correctness of the impugned order to the extent to which it has gone against him, while Appeal No. E/1816/01-NB has been filed by the Revenue for questioning the correctness of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .C. confirmed the demand through the order-in-original and also imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the assessee. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned order allowed the appeal partly by holding that debiting of AED (TTA) from BED account maintained in RG 23C Part-II (Rule 57Q) by the appellants was correct, while debiting of AED (TTA) from BED account maintained in RG 23A Part-I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned in RG 23A Part-II is not permissible. This duty could be paid only from account current in PLA/Modvat maintained for AED (TTA) account only. The duty of excise which is leviable under Section 3 read with Schedule to the CETA is known as basic excise duty, whereas the additional duty of excise is liable on certain specified goods under separate enactments. Therefore, obviously these two differe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same is not permissible in terms of Rule 57Q read with Notification No. 5/94. The basic excise duty account could not be utilised for discharging the additional excise duty which had been levied under different Act. It could be utilised only for payment of BED leviable under the Central Excise Act. A.C. has recorded the detailed reasons for disallowing the debit of AED from BED account mainta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
