9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 1209 - HC - CustomsForfeiture of facility to pay the duty on a monthly basis under Rule 8(4) of the Rules for a period of two months - rejection on the ground that the assessee has defaulted in payment of duty even after a lapse of thirty days from the date on which the payment was due - Held that - We see no reason to interfere with the order under challenge in this writ petition as it has not been disputed before us that payment of duty was belated; and all that the respondents have done is to deny the petitioner the facility of payment of duty on a monthly basis only for a period of two months. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
Issues:
1. Non-payment of duty within the specified time leading to forfeiture of facility to pay duty on a monthly basis. 2. Dispute regarding belated payment of duty and denial of the facility to pay duty on a monthly basis. 3. Legality of the order under challenge in the writ petition. Analysis: Issue 1: The Assistant Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise issued proceedings stating that the petitioner failed to pay duty on time for the financial year 2002-03, rendering themselves liable for forfeiture of the facility to pay duty on a monthly basis under Rule 8(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The petitioner's grievance was being prevented from making monthly payments due to non-payment of duty within the specified time. Issue 2: The petitioner had failed to pay duty on time on three occasions, leading to belated payment and incurring interest of around Rs. 10,500. The order noted the delay in payment and the petitioner's liability for forfeiture of the monthly payment facility for a period of two months or until all dues were paid. Issue 3: The High Court found no reason to interfere with the order as the belated payment of duty was not disputed. The court held that the respondents were justified in denying the petitioner the facility to pay duty on a monthly basis for a limited period of two months. The court concluded that the impugned order was not illegal, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In conclusion, the writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The court upheld the order preventing the petitioner from paying duty on a monthly basis for a period of two months due to belated payment of duty. Any pending miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed in light of the judgment.
|
