CCE Vs. KEW INDUSTRIES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is no representation today for the respondents in spite of notice. Having examined the records, I am of the view that this appeal of the Revenue can be finally disposed of at this stage after hearing the DR.

(2.) IT appears from the record that the respondents were availing the facility of payment of Central Excise duty on fortnightly basis under Rule 8 of the Central Excise (2) Rules 2001; that the original authority had withdrawn this facility for a period of 2 months on the ground of defaults in payment of duty by the party for three fortnights ending 31.5.2001, 15.7.2001 and 31.7.2001; that the order of the original authority was appealed against; that the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal and that the Revenue has filed the present appeal on the basis of its interpretation of Sub -rule (4) of Rule 8 of the aforesaid rules. Ld. DR has reiterated the ground stated in the memorandum of appeal.

(3.) I have examined the above ground of the appeal and the submissions of the Ld. DR. Apparently, the original authority issued 4 show -cause notices simultaneously to the party, each proposing to withdraw the above facility of fortnightly payment of duty, for a period of 2 months in terms of the above sub -rule and four separate orders forfeiting the facility for a total period of 8 months were passed by the adjudicating authority. It appears that the party preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against only one of these four orders of the original authority. The ground raised in that appeal was that as the appellants had already suffered forfeiture of the aforestated facility for six months under the other three orders of the original authority, it was not just or reasonable on the part of the said authority to have withdrawn the facility for a further period of 2 months. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) accepted this ground and allowed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal of the Revenue.