AHMEDNAGAR FORGINGS LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are directed against order -in -appeal No. P -I/71 -172/2000 dated 22.9.2000. Since these two appeals are arising out of common order -in -appeal and the issue being same, they are being disposed by a common order.

(2.) THE relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants herein during the period December 97 to March 98 and July 98 to September 98 presented cheque to the local bank for raising credit in the PLA, by presenting the same with the TR6 challan. On presentation of TR6 challan the appellants took credit in the PLA without waiting for acknowledgement receipt on TR6 challan. After scrutiny of the records the revenue came to the conclusion that the appellants have availed credit on the date of the cheque when it was issued and not on the date of realization of the cheque. Show cause notice was issued for imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants contested the show cause notice on the ground that there was a delay of only two to three days but there is no dishonouring of the cheque and the money has already been credited to the government treasury. Hence there is no need for imposition of penalty. Adjudicating authority did not accept the contentions and imposed penalties on the appellants. On an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contentions of the appellants but reduced the penalties. Hence these appeals.

(3.) IT is the contention of the ld. Counsel for the appellants that the issue is squarely covered by the Tribunal's decision in the case of India Cements 2002 (150) ELT 1344(Tri. -Bang) and followed in the case of CCE v. Raj Forgings & Gears Ltd. and SAIL . On perusal of the records, it is seen that the amount of cheques for which the credit was raised in the PLA was not dishonoured. The said amount was credited to the government treasury albeit subsequently. As such, the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the Division Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of India Cements (supra). I may read the ratio: