9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2. The brief facts of the case are as under :- 2.1 The Appellant is engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapters 73 and 74 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and for that purpose, the Appellant has its factory at Gaurai Pada, Vasai, District Thane. 2.2 The Appellant was paying duty on fortnightly basis under erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Appellant was required to pay duty on or before 20th of the month in respect of clearances effected between 1st day of month to 15th day of month and on 5th of the next month for clearances effected between 16th day of month to last day of the month. 2.3 In view of the delay in payment of Central Excise duty due on 5th May, 2000, 5th September 2000, 20th September 2000, 20th October 2000, the then Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Vasai Division, without issuing any show-cause notice, vide his orders dated 21st June, 2000 and 3rd November, 2000 withdrew the facility of payment of central excise duty on monthly basis under the Rule 173G(1) read with Rule 49(1)(a) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Notification No. 31/2000 C.E. (N.T.), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 33.80 lakhs. Vide another Panchnama dated 18th July, 2002, the Superintendent of Central Excise detained excisable goods of the Appellant valued at ₹ 29,04,725.00 under Section 142(1)(b) of the Customs Act read with Notification No. 68/63 C.E. (N.T.), dated 4 May, 1963 read with Section 11 of the Central Excise Act in pursuance of the purported ex parte detention order No. 4/2002-2003, dated 24 June, 2002 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Vasai Division, for non-payment of government dues of ₹ 28.60 lakhs. 2.9 Being aggrieved by the said Detention Orders Nos. 3/2002-2003 and 4/2002-2003 both dated 24th June, 2002, the Appellant preferred two separate appeals to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) on 14th August, 2002. 2.10 Vide his common Order-in-Appeal No. PKA/381 to 382/M-III/2002 dated 18th September, 2002, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) was pleased to dismiss both the appeals filed by the Appellant against Detention Order Nos. 3/2002-2003 and 4/2002-2003 both dated 24th June, 2002. 2.11 Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Appeal dated 18th September, 2002, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directed the Appellant to pay ₹ 22.80 lakhs and ₹ 21.06 lakhs due to the Government through PLA along with interest as applicable and on payment thereof permitted the Appellants to take re-credit of the duty paid through Cenvat credit account. 2.18 Vide Notification No. 13/2006-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-6-2006, the Government of India, amended Central Excise Rules, 2002, by incorporating sub-rule 3A to Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2.19 Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original No. 20/2007, dated 29th June, 2007, the Appellant preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). Vide his Order-in-Appeal No. MI/AV/225/2011, dated 21st April 2011, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) was pleased to dismiss the Appeal filed by the Appellant against Order-in-Original No. 20/2007, dated 29th June, 2007. Being arrived by the said Order-in-Appeal No. MI/AV/225/2011 dated 21st April, 2011, the Appellant preferred Appeal No. E/1383/2011 on 10th August, 2011. Vide its Final Order No. M/920/11/EB/C-II and A/1013-1014/11 /EB/C-II, dated 28th October, 2011, this Tribunal, after condoning the delay in filing Appeal No. E/1383/2011, dismissed both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... starting with the 1st day after due date till the date of actual payment. Further, as per Rule 173G(1)(e), if any default is committed for the reason that the full payment of any one installment is discharged beyond the period of 30 days or the due date on which full payment of installments are violated for the third time in a financial year in succession or otherwise, then the manufacturer vide order of authority, shall forfeit the facility to pay the dues in installments under this sub-rule for a period of two months stipulated from the date of communication of an order passed by the proper officer in this regard or till such date on which all the dues are paid, whichever is later and during this period the manufacturer is liable to pay excise duty for each consignment by debit to the account current referred to in clause (b) and in event of any such failure it will be deemed as if such goods have been cleared without payment of duty and the consequences and penalties as provided in the Central Excise Rules shall be followed. The Hon ble High Court has further observed that it is for the first time that a non-obstantive clause was added w.e.f. 31-3-2005 so as to take away the ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
