LAWS(CE)-2005-3-204

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. KAPIL STEEL LTD.

Decided On March 10, 2005
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Appellant
V/S
Kapil Steel Ltd. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, the Revenue has made challenge to the impugned order vide which the adjudicating authority has failed to confirm the duty demand as per the terms of the show cause notice, but only ordered that the Asstt. Commissioner's order dated 31 -8 -2001 regarding the duty and penalty would be followed.

(2.) THE ld. SDR has contended that the Asstt. Commissioner earlier passed the order by exercising the powers conferred vide Rule 8(4) of the Central Excise (No. 2), Rules, 2001 as there was a default by making a payment of duty by the respondents during the fortnight ending 31 -10 -2000 and as per that order, the respondents were liable to pay the duty from the account current for two months from the date of the order, winch is 29 -8 -2001, but they failed to discharge the duty liability in terms of this order and rather paid the same from RG 23, therefore, clearances made by the respondents during the months of September and October, 2001, in terms of the said order of the Asstt. Commissioner, have to be treated without payment of duty and as such the adjudicating authority was duty bound to confirm the duty with interest and penalty thereon.

(3.) ON the other hand, ld. Counsel has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order and contended that after the fortnight ending 31 -10 -2000, duty was paid through the account current and as such, the respondents complied with the terms of the order of the Asstt. Commissioner. He has further contended that payment of duty from RG 23 thereafter during the months of September -October, 2001, did not amount to non -payment of duty by the respondents and that the respondents even otherwise if had paid the duty from the account current, would have got the credit also. It is a case, according to the ld. SDR, of revenue neutral. In the alternative, the Counsel has also contended that the respondents should also be allowed to take the re -credit of the duty amount paid from the RG 23, in case they are to be directed to pay the duty from the account current.