2008 (10) TMI 513 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 regarding forfeiture of duty payment facility.
2. Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) has the authority to reduce the period of forfeiture beyond the statutory limit.
3. Application of precedents set by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and the Tribunal in similar cases.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a small scale unit facing financial hardship due to delayed duty payment under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Assistant Commissioner initially ordered a two-month forfeiture of the duty payment facility, which was later reduced to 12 days by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue appealed, arguing that Rule 8(3A) mandates a two-month forfeiture period, but the Respondent contended that previous judgments indicated the maximum limit was not mandatory.

2. The Tribunal analyzed the arguments and previous decisions, noting that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and the Tribunal had established that the two-month forfeiture period under Rule 8 is a maximum limit, not a mandatory requirement. Considering the financial crisis faced by the Respondent, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's contention that the forfeiture period could not be reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. Ultimately, after reviewing the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to reduce the forfeiture period. The Tribunal concluded that there was no valid reason to interfere with the Commissioner's order, and therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court, bringing the matter to a close.