2006 (6) TMI 427

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , for the Respondent. [Order]. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents were availing SSI exemption and paying the duty on monthly basis by the 15th of the succeeding month. It was observed that they have failed to discharge the duty twice on due dates. Therefore the facility for payment of duty on monthly basis was suspended by the divisional Assistant Commissioner and the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as no provisions in the erstwhile Rule 173GG(1) and (4) that the duty liability was to be paid only through account current during the period when their facility to pay duty on monthly/fortnightly basis was forfeited. 2. Learned J.D.R. submits that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is incorrect as Rule 173GG was omitted w.e.f. 1-4-2000 by Notification No. 11/2000 dated 1-3-2000 and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s against the respondents have been clearly spelt out and accordingly mere mention of wrong provision of law when power exercised is available even though under a different provision is not by itself sufficient to invalidate exercise of that power. This view is supported by Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta v. Pradyumna Steel Ltd. - 1996 (82) E.L.T. 441 (S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X