TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (1) TMI 395
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emsp;Brief facts of the case are that, the appellant is a manufacturer of iron and steel re-rolled products. As per Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, every assessee is permitted to pay the duty liability in two instalments, by 20th of each month and 5th of the following month. 2.1 The following table shows the belated/non-payment of the instalments in due dates. Present Appeal No. Jt. Commissioner's Order Reference No. & date Default -Fortnight Forfeiture Period 172/2002 M II C. No. IV/16/ 271/2002, Dated 26-9-2002 First Fortnight May, 2002 Duty not paid even beyond 30 days 1-12-2002 to 31-1-2003 173/2002 M II C. No. IV/16/ 271/2002, Dated 26-9-2002 2nd Fortnight May, 2002 & 1st fortnight of July....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngineering Works Ltd. v. U.O.I. - 2001 (134) E.L.T. 14 (P & H), the facility of payment of duty on fortnightly basis to be forfeited only after affording an opportunity of hearing to the party. The decision is directly on the issue in favour of the appellant. Thus, the order of Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, passed without an opportunity to the appellant is liable to be set aside as violative of the principles of natural justice. 3.3 Rule 8(4) Not Applicable - When Payment Not Made : Rule 8(3) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 deals with the situation when the amount of duty is not paid. It stipulates condition of payment of the instalment with interest. This rule 8(3) does not prescribe the condition of forfeiture of the faci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant did not file any appeal relating to that period. 3.8 They prayed to set aside the impugned proceedings issued by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai V Division, Chennai II Commissionerate in C. No. IV/16/271/2002, dated 26-9-2002 and thus render justice. 4. Personal hearing was granted to the appellant Shri T. Sundaranathan, learned Advocate appeared for the personal hearing on 27-12-2002. He explained the case in detail and reiterated the grounds of appeal. He stated that the 3 appeals are identical. No show cause notice was given to them before passing the orders and hence the lower authority has violated Principles of natural justice. The lower authority also passed the orders on the same date and the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Excise Rules, 1944 there would be no case for issue of show cause notice under Sec. 11A of the Central Excise Act. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise has acted within the Four Corners of law in passing the order dated 17-3-2001..... Para 20. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused all relevant documents and judgments cited at the bar. We find no infirmity in the order dated 17-3-2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Hissar. The impugned order has been passed in consonance with provisions of the Act and Rules. This petition is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed......." The appellant is functioning under Self Assessment Procedure as per Rule 6 of Ce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmination of dues, etc., would be necessary as the duty payable is already admitted by the assessee..." From the case records it becomes evident that the appellant defaulted payments during the financial year 2002-2003 for the payment due for the second fortnight of April, 2002 and the defaulted amount was paid by the appellant after a delay of 48 days. The lower authority proceeded to pass the impugned order for forfeiture only on 26-9-2002 after a delay of 112 days. The appellant committed further defaults for the months of June and July, 2002 which is the scope of the present appeal. I find the lower authority has erred in not ordering the forfeiture of deferred payment immediately on each qualifying default. Instead he has chosen to ....