Double recovery of excise duty barred where duty was already discharged, and nominal delay was treated as procedural lapse.

Delayed excise duty payment was treated as a procedural lapse where the record showed the duty on the relevant clearances had already been discharged, albeit belatedly, with interest. The Tribunal indicated that the same duty could not be recovered twice on the same clearances, once through PLA and again through the deemed credit register, unless the earlier debit was first re-credited. It also accepted that nominal shorter defaults could be ignored, and held that the longer delay did not justify a fresh duty demand on the facts. The duty demand and penalty were therefore not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty from PLA and the consequential penalty were sustainable after the assessee's forfeiture of the fortnightly payment facility for delayed duty payments, and whether the duty already discharged through the deemed credit account could be again recovered.

Analysis: The delay in payment was treated as a procedural lapse, and the record showed that duty for the relevant clearances had been discharged, though belatedly, along with interest. The Tribunal held that the same excise duty could not be effectively recovered twice on the same clearances, once through PLA and again through the deemed credit register, unless the earlier debit was first re-credited. It further accepted that the shorter defaults were covered by the principle of ignoring nominal delays, while the longer delay did not justify a fresh duty demand in view of the treatment of the debit in the current account/Cenvat account.

Conclusion: The duty demand and the penalty were not sustainable, and the order of the lower authority was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---