9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime of stay hearing. Accordingly, we have heard Shri T.K. Kar, learned SDR and have gone through the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). 2. As per facts on record, the duty has been confirmed against the respondent for the months September, 2000, October, 2000 and November, 2000 on the ground that their Range Superintendent passed an order dated 18-12-2000 intimating the respondent that facility of payment of duty in instalments is forfeited and the respondent should pay duty on consignment basis by debiting the same from their PLA for a period of next two months. The Respondents accepted the above order of the Superintendent and started paying duty on the goods cleared during the period on consignment ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defaults in payment of C. Ex. duty in instalment for reason mentioned in sub-clause (i) or (ii) of the said rule he shall forfeit the facility to pay the dues in instalments for "a period of two months, starting from the date of communication of an order passed by the proper officer in this regard". So, for the purpose of operating upon forfeiture an order is required to be passed by a proper officer in this regard. I find that the Notification issued under Rule 2 of the CER '44 designated the Asstt. Commissioner or Dy. Commissioner of C. Ex. as the proper officer in this regard. So, the order forfeiting the facility as passed by the Supdt. is not legal and as such proceedings initiated for violation of such order vis-a-vis violation of Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the Superintendent was never appealed by the appellant before Commissioner (Appeals). In fact the respondent had accepted the said order and started paying duty on consignment basis. As such, the order of the Supdt. had attained finality and was required to be followed by the respondents. The only dispute is as to whether during this period of forfeiture, respondents were required to discharge their duty liability out of PLA or out of the Cenvat credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) has gone beyond the scope of the adjudication proceedings and has set aside the order of the Supdt. It was not even the subject-matter of appeal before him. As such we find that the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) is not legally correct. 7. As re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
