9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant. Shri G. Natarajan, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The captioned appeals filed by the Revenue deal with two identical orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and seek to vacate the Orders-in-Appeal Nos. 5 6/2004 (M-II) both dated 8-1-04. By the impugned orders, the lower appellate authority modified the orders of the original authority by vacating the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- and dropping the demand of duty paid by the respondents utilizing the deemed credit available for clearances of cotton fabrics of CSH 5209. The respondents have two units. Appeal No. E/546/04 relates to orders in respect of Unit I. Appeal No. E/547/04 relates to orders in a case of identical facts in respect of Unit II. First ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise Rules, 2002 was suspended. He found that taking into account the admissible deemed credit the demand had to be restricted to Rs. 1,42,447/- which the respondents had paid along with interest. As the duty due had been paid before issuance of Show Cause Notice, he vacated the penalty on the respondents. 3. The appeal filed by the Revenue is on the ground that the clearances made by the respondents during the material period without discharging the duty liability entirely from the account current and consignmentwise had to be treated to have been clearances made without payment of duty, in terms of Rule 8(4) of the Central Excise (No. 2), Rules, 2001. When the clearances effected were deemed to have been made without payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decisions cited do not absolve the respondents from the penal consequences of not paying duty on consignment basis when the fortnightly payment facility was suspended. In the instant case, the respondents had contravened the provisions of Rule 8(4) of the Central Excise (No.2) Rules, 2001 by not discharging the duty on consignment basis. As the respondents had met the duty liability from deemed credit and from PLA for the clearances made during the material period, I do not hold that the respondents have a subsisting liability to discharge duty on the impugned clearances. In the circumstances, I allow the appeal filed by the Revenue to the extent of restoring the penalty imposed by the original authority. Appeal No. E/547/04 7. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
