TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MI 38 - SUPREME COURT] . That was particularly necessary in the fact of the present case where the petitioner has chosen to follow one of the options given by the Revenue and the demand for interest was being raised after a good number of years. As far as that aspect is concerned, in our view, tlie submissions of Mr. Patil deserve to be accepted. The petitioner was entitled to at-least show cause for which he had to be given an opportunity. Thus, we interfere with the demand Notices and quash and set aside the detention Memo. Consequently, the goods will be released The respondents may issue a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why the interest as claimed should not be recovered and then after affording a hearing and considering t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as it was earlier doing under Rule 173G(i)(a) and that the petitioner will have to pay the duty for each consignment by debiting to the current account or by CENVAT for the period of two months from the date of communication of that order. Accordingly, petitioner preferred to follow the CENVAT method from 16-11-2000 onwards. The respondents subsequently issued a Corrigendum on 19th December 2000 making it clear that the petitioner will have to make payment by debiting to the current account only. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter it made payment from the Personal Ledger Account i.e. after 20th December 2000. That was so until the expiry of the period of two months as required and then the petitioner went back to the method pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3) E..L.T. 351 (Bom.) where the Revenue did not dispute that the liability to pay duty can be discharged either by debiting the current account or by utilizing CENVAT credit. This is recorded in para-6 of this judgment. 8. Mr. Rao appearing for the respondents, however, contends that this judgment is not explaining Rule 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. That apart, he states that although the letter of the Deputy Commissioner dated 14-11-2000 did state that the petitioner may pay the excise duty by debit to the current account/CENVAT, the reference to CENVAT was erroneous and that was impermissible. He relied on sub-clause 1(e) of Rule 173G which provides as follows: (e) If the manufacturer defaults on account of any of the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er has chosen to follow one of the options given by the Revenue and the demand for interest was being raised after a good number of years. As far as that aspect is concerned, in our view, tlie submissions of Mr. Patil deserve to be accepted. The petitioner was entitled to at-least show cause for which he had to be given an opportunity. 10. For this limited reason, we interfere with the demand Notices dated 24th August 2006 and 4th September 2006 and quash and set aside the detention Memo dated 21st September 2006. Consequently, the goods will be released The respondents may issue a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why the interest as claimed should not be recovered and then after affording a hearing and considering the defence, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
