BILPOWER LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 29th March, 2010 passed by respondent No. 2, Member, Central Board of Excise and Customs, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. By the impugned order, the facility of monthly payment of excise duty as provided under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was ordered to be withdrawn and directions were issued to the petitioner requiring it to pay excise duty for each consignment at the time of removal of goods w.e.f. 1st April, 2010 to 30th November, 2010. It was also ordered that payment of Excise duty by utilization of CENVAT credit as provided under Rule 3(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 to be stopped w.e.f. 1st April, 2010 to 30th November, 2010, during which period the petitioner was required to pay excise duty without utilizing CENVAT credit. However, the petitioner was permitted to take CEVNAT credit during this period which can be utilized for payment of duty after the aforesaid period is over.

(3.) During the course of hearing, it is pointed out that, at the time of sending proposal, the Deputy Director of DGCEI, New Delhi by his letter dated 10th November, 2009 inter alia, informed the petitioner that a proposal from ADG DGCEI, Ahmedabad has been received under the provisions of Notification No.32/2006-CE(NT) dated 30th December, 2006 recommending that, the facility of monthly payment of duty may be withdrawn and the petitioner should be made to pay excise duty for each consignment at the time of removal of goods for a period of three months and that the payment of duty by utilization of CENVAT credit may be restricted and the petitioner shall be required to pay excise duty without utilizing the CENVAT Credit for a period of three months. By the said letter, the Deputy Director called upon the petitioner to make representation within seven days of receipt of the said notice as to why the restrictions as mentioned above should not be imposed in respect of the goods cleared from the petitioner s factory. By the said letter, the petitioner was also granted a personal hearing before respondent No. 3 to explain its case.