9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said scheme, they were liable to discharge their duty liability at the rate of Rs. 6 lakhs per month based on the Annual Capacity of Production (ACP, for short) determined by the Commissioner of Central Excise under Rule 3 of the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 (ACD Rules, for short). As per Rule 96ZQ, they were liable to pay the duty for each month on or before the 15th day of that month. If the duty was not so paid, a penalty equal to the amount of duty outstanding was liable to be paid as per sub-rule 5 of Rule 96ZQ. For the months of May, June and July, 1999, the appellants had paid duty on different dates after the 15th day of the respective months, and the total amount of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... self was struck down by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Beauty Dyers v. Union of India & Ors. [2002 (52) R.L.T. 636 (Mad.)]. Learned SDR reiterated the findings recorded by the lower appellate authority. 3. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we find that, in a case of another textile processor, who was asked by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise to pay certain amount of duty for the period 16-12-1998 to 29-3-1999 in terms of the ACP determined under the ACD Rules, this Bench set aside the demand after noting that the ACD Rules had been struck down by the High Court as ultra vires the Central Excise Act vide Final Order No. 1395/2005 dated 29-09-2005 in Appeal No.E/637/2001 (Raji Thang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee only in the event of any part of the duty amount for the month remaining unpaid on the last day of the month were not in accordance with the provisions of Rule 96ZQ, but one cannot blame the assessee if he was carried away by the Commissioner's directive. Apparently, in this case, the assessee paid duty within the time prescribed by the Commissioner for the months of May and July, 1999. For the month of June, 1999, an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was paid on or before the last day of the month and the balance amount of Rs. 1 lakh was paid on the first day of July. In terms of the Commissioner's orders, there was a delay of one day in the payment of Rs. 1 lakhs out of Rs. 6 lakhs. In such circumstances, we think, it was not justifiable f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
