2010 (5) TMI 288

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ry 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of monthly payment of excise duty as provided under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was ordered to be withdrawn and directions were issued to the petitioner requiring it to pay excise duty for each consignment at the time of removal of goods w.e.f. 1st April, 2010 to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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Submissions 4. Mr. Shah submits that even though show cause notice was for withholding the CENVAT credit facility for a period of three months, ultimately, the authority has passed the order withholding the same for six months. He, thus, submits that the impugned order travels beyond the scope of show cause notice. It is further submitted that the authority who has issued, the notice to the petitioner, did not pass the order. In other words, hearing was given by one authority whereas, the order was passed by another authority, which according to the petitioner is unsustainable in the eye of law. 5. Mr. Jately, on the other hand supported the order by submitting that once the hearing is given by one authority, it is not necessary for th....