9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, 'the Tribunal') claiming that the following substantial questions of law would arise for determination of this Court:- "1. Whether the Tribunal can go beyond the statutory provisions as provided under the Central Excise Rules, 2002? 2. Whether the Tribunal can modify the mandatory penalty period of two months provided under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, in cases where it is established that the assessee had defaulted in payment of monthly duty in contravention of the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules thereby attracting the provisions of Rule 8(3 A) of the Rules?" 2. Facts may first be noticed, which have been referred from C.E.A. No. 69 of 2009. The as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to the fact that the assessee-respondent company was declared as a sick unit by the BIFR and it has been facing grave financial crisis. It was further pleaded that the duty was already deposited on 18-1-2006 even prior to issuance of show cause notice on 9-3-2006 and passing of order dated 26-7-2006 by the Adjudicating Authority. On 17-8-2006, the Commissioner (Appeals) came to the conclusion that the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority was too harsh and reduced the period of forfeiture from two months to three weeks from the date of communication of order dated 26-7-2006 or till such date all the dues were paid, whichever is later (A-2). 4. The revenue-appellant filed further appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order-in-ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... month. Accordingly, the Tribunal has dismissed all the appeals preferred by the Revenue, vide impugned order dated 6-6-2008 (A-3) [2009 (236) E.L.T. 187 (Tri. - Del.)]. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the revenue-appellant and perused the paper books with his able assistance. It is conceded position that in all these appeals the assessee-respondent(s) have paid the substantial duty in time and the balance has also been paid with interest. Therefore, hardly any loss has been caused to the Revenue. We see no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal warranting admission of these appeals, in so far as the questions of law sought to be raised by the revenue-appellant are concerned, we leave the same open to be decided in s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
