C.C.E., CHANDIGARH Vs. FERTICHEM (INDIA)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Division vide his Order dt. 18.12.2000 held that the respondents by utilising the CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 1,56,255.00 which was actually available only from 16.11.2000, had violated the provisions of Clause (e) (i) of sub -rule (1) of Rule 173G of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Accordingly, he directed that the facility to pay the duty in instalments under this Sub -rule stood forfeited to the respondents for a period of two months starting from the date of receipt of the order.

(2.) The respondents filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh vide his Order dt. 11.1.2001 observed that the CENVAT credit earned by the party during the period 1.11.2000 to 15.11.2000 was available to them for payment of Central Excise duty with effect from 16.11.2000. But, they had utilised this for paying duty on 4.11.2000 for the forthnight of 16.10.2000 to 31.10.2000. Thus, they utilised the CENVAT credit for which they have paid interest from PLA as per record. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has observed that as the CENVAT credit so utilised in any case was admissible, the mistake they had committed is of bonafide nature for which they cannot be penalized. Accordingly, he allowed the appeal by setting aside the order passed by the Original Authority.

(3.) The present Stay Petition is against the above order of Commissioner (Appeals). I have heard Shri A.K. Jain, JDR for the Revenue and Shri Ajai Jain, Advocate for the respondents. It is pleaded in the Revenue appeal that the operational period of the order passed by the proper Officer under Rule 173 -G is of a limited period of two months and the Order -in -Appeal has All India implications. It is therefore, prayed that the operation of Order -in -Appeal may be stayed. The ld. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the party has already rectified the mistake by paying the duty from their PLA on 13.12.2000 which is admitted even in the Order -in -Original. It is further stated that they have also paid the interest for the number of days of default. Therefore, the Stay Petition filed by the Revenue has become infructuous. I have considered these submissions. As rightly contended by the ld. Counsel for the respondents, the amount involved in the present case has already been paid by the respondents through their PLA along with the interest which is vouched by the facts mentioned even in the Order -in -Original as well as in the Order -in -Appeal. The Stay Petition filed by the Revenue therefore, is infructuous and same is accordingly dismissed.