TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 660X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order]. Learned Consultant, Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay appearing for the Appellant submitted that mere change in modality of discharge of duty by Notification No. 12/2003-C.E. (NT) dated 1-3-2003 does not alter the right of the Appellant who is entitled to discharge duty-liability both depositing from PLA as well as from the Cenvat Credit Account recorded in RG-23A Part-II. According to him, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the PLA Credit aggregated together, were sufficient enough to discharge the duty-liability of Rs. 7,98,018.00 (Rupees seven lakhs ninety-eight thousand and eighteen) in the first fortnight and Rs. 6,92,430.00+Rs. 20,61,429.00, i.e. Rs. 27,53,859.00 (Rupees twenty-seven lakhs fifty-three thousand eight hundred and fifty-nine), in the subsequent fortnight from the above Credit. Even if the duty-lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity in this case and therefore, by recording entry regarding duty-liability and discharge thereof, both in the PLA as well as in the CENVAT Account, Revenue was not at all prejudiced. In support of his contention, learned Consultant submitted that this Tribunal had also taken a lenient view in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong v. Assam Surfactants - 2007 (217) E.L.T. 123 (Tri. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken together in RG-23A Part-II, were sufficient enough to discharge the duty-liability of both fortnights of May, 2003 in aggregate. When the procedural provision brings a change, the Appellant may face hardship, which deserves lenient consideration being such procedural provision should not be bottleneck to the substantive provision dealing with the right of the Appellant to the Cenvat credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
