2003 (6) TMI 292

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Respondent. [Order]. - There is no representation today for the respondents in spite of notice. Having examined the records, I am of the view that this appeal of the Revenue can be finally disposed of at this stage after hearing the DR. 2. It appears from the record that the respondents were availing the facility of payment of central excise duty on fortnightly basis under Rule 8 o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tnightly payment of duty, for a period of 2 months in terms of the above sub-rule and four separate orders forfeiting the facility for a total period of 8 months were passed by the adjudicating authority. It appears that the party preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against only one of these four orders of the original authority. The ground raised in that appeal was that as the appellan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Calcom Vision Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut [2002 (142) E.L.T. 383] to hold that it is not mandatory that, in all cases, the facility should be forfeited for the maximum period. Thus, apparently, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has exercised his discretion in the matter and held that forfeiture of the facility for a further period of 2 months was not fair and just as the party had already suffered for a period o....