LAWS(CE)-2006-9-203

KUNDAN INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Decided On September 05, 2006
Kundan Industries Ltd. Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) THE issue relates to wrong availment of fortnightly payment of duty facility in terms of Rule 173'G' of Central Excise Act, 1944 as amended, though the appellant is a non -SSI unit. It is alleged that the appellant has failed to pay the balance amount to be paid in time pertaining to the second fortnight of April 2000, second fortnight of August 2000, 1st fortnight of September 2000 and 1st fortnight of October 2000. It is actually due on 5.9.2000, 20.9.2000 and 20.10.2000 respectively and debarred in payment of due amount 30 days in respect of second fortnight of April 2000 and on such 3 occasions respectively. The said assessee has failed to discharge duty liability within the stipulated period -30 days and on 3 occasions respectively. Therefore, in terms of the provision amended Rule 173G(1) and notification No. 31 -2000 C.E. dated 31.3.2000, vide orders dated 21.6.2000 and 3.11.2000 withdrew the facility of payment of Central Excise Duty on monthly basis under Rule 173G (1) read with Rule 49(1)(a) and in terms of Notification No. 31/2000 C.E. dated 31.2.2000 for 2 months from the date of receipt of these orders. The Appellants were also ordered to pay interest due alongwith penalty as applicable under Central Excise Rule, 1944. The submissions of the ld. Counsel for the appellants interalia are as under: SUBMISSION A.1 The proceedings initiated are entirely based on the interpretation that the term "account current" appearing in Clause (e) of Rule 173G(1) would mean PLA only and not the Cenvat credit account. In other words, the department has proceeded on the basis that when Rule 173G(1)(e) requires that the manufacturer to pay excise duty for each consignment by debit to the account current, such debit can be made only through PLA and not Cenvat credit account. This interpretation is plainly incorrect. Fourth proviso to Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules, as it stood from 1944 require the manufacturer to maintain an "account current" of the duties payable on the excisable goods and such account shall be settled at intervals not exceeding one month, and account -holder shall periodically make deposit therein sufficient in the opinion of the Commissioner to cover the duty due on the goods intended to be removed from the place of manufacturer.