2008 (8) TMI 757

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [Order per : B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. - The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under chapter 52, 54 and 55 of the Schedule 21 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and at the material time were discharging Central Excise duty liability under Compounded Levy Scheme as per Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A show cause notice, was issued for failure .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o them on 18-5-2001 they paid the dues. He found merit in the contention that it was not correct on the part of the Department to keep the abatement claim pending for a long time and then impose a heavy and unreasonable penalty for non-payment of duty. He also observed that the abatement was required to be set off against payment of liability for subsequent period and by doing so there is no quest .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Therefore, the Revenue already had the amount and Department has taken more than a year to settle this claim and has allowed the abatement in the form of credit in the PLA only in May, 2001. This is not a case where amount is paid in cash as a refund. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that the appellants were right in reducing the abatement claim from their duty liability. W .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X