9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NVAT account instead of PLA/cash during the period of forfeiture under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2001 – Following Noble Drugs Vs. CCE [2007 (7) TMI 327 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] - the period of forfeiture facility for payment of duty on fortnightly basis, is required to pay duty out of the PLA - The provisions of Rule 8(4) are pari material with Rule 173G(1)(e) and the non-obstantive clause was introduced by insertion of sub-rule 3A in Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, only w.e.f. 31.3.2005 - the recovery of duty and interest which shall be paid in PLA/cash are set aside – Decided against Revenue. - E/189/2004 - - - Dated:- 6-3-2013 - P K Das And Mathew John , JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Parmod Kumar, Jt. Commr. (AR) For t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 15.4.2004 the assessee filed the cross-objection on 19.4.2004. The prayer in the said letter was for setting aside the demand. In the condonation of delay application, the assessee stated that immediately after the receipt of the notice of the appeal filed by the Revenue, they filed their cross-objection by their letter dated 15.4.2004 praying to set aside the demand of differential duty with interest. 5. We find that the assessee filed the cross-objection in a letter form within the stipulated period. Subsequently, they filed the cross-objection in proper form. As the cross-objection was originally filed within the stipulated period, the COD application filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous. Now we take up the appeal a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of India 2009 (246) ELT 114 (Bom.) following the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Noble Drugs (supra) and the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Thanikudam Bhagawati Mills (supra) held that payment from CENVAT account during forfeiture on fortnightly payment facility is legal and proper. The Tribunal in the case of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2008 (230) ELT 179 following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court allowed the appeal of the assessee on the identical issue. The learned Advocate submits that the impugned order in so far as the payment of duty and interest in PLA/cash may be set aside and the appeal of the Revenue is liable to be dismissed. 8. The learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no more res integra. In the case of Noble Drugs Ltd. (supra) it was referred to the Larger Bench of the Tribunal as to whether an assessee during the period of forfeiture facility for payment of duty on fortnightly basis, is required to pay duty out of the PLA and whether failure on his part to do so would attract interest and penal provision or not. The reference was answered as under: "It cannot be disputed that the provisions of Rule 8(4) are pari material with Rule 173G(1)(e) and the non-obstantive clause was introduced by insertion of sub-rule 3A in Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, only w.e.f. 31.3.2005, while the period in dispute in the present case is prior to that date. The ratio of the Kerala High Court's judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
