TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (11) TMI 65
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....covering the amount, invoking the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. It is seen from the said notice that the impugned communication emanated on account of a request made from the Superintendent of Central Excise. 2. The petitioner is M/s. Standard Colour Products at No. 63, G.N.T. Road, Pulal, Madras-66 and were manufacturing synthetics, organic dyestuffs falling under Tariff No. 14(d) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. Being a small scale unit, they have been discharging their liability to pay the excise duty under the simplified procedure in terms of Rule 173RD of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, according to which, a flat rate liability of Rs. 3,687/- p.m. was fixed as payable by the petitioner irrespective of the quantum of m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th the petitioner but have also undertaken to the Department to pay the amount due from the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- every month. This is borne out by the communications available in its original, in the files made available by learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. The fact remains and that there is no serious controversy over the position that only a sum of Rs. 5,000/- has been remitted on 25-9-1982 and a further sum of Rs. 2,374.38 on 5-2-1983. After deducting the said sum of Rs. 7,374.38, the balance of Rs. 11,245.93 remained yet to be recovered, and, since neither the petitioner nor M/s. Standard Products, as per their undertaking, honoured their commitments and remitted the amount, the second respondent was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....merit in the stand taken by the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, since the petitioner has failed to pay the arrears of due and assessed on him, the second respondent was well within his rights in addressing the first respondent to have the arrears recovered by invoking the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act and no exception could be taken to the impugned communication issued by the first respondent. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing on either side. I am of the view that the plea on behalf of the petitioner is not only frivolous but cannot be countenanced in law. The conduct of the petitioner only indicates the extent of abuse of the privilege and permission gran....