TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (12) TMI 473
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri K.L. Bablani, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Moheb Ali M., Member (T)]. - These stay applications arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II. In the impugned order, the Commissioner confirmed a duty of Rs. 49.05 lakhs and Rs. 57,71,186/- and ordered appropriation of the said amounts from the payments made. He also imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. As the applicants were not in a position to clear the said goods on payment of duty through PLA, they started clearing them on fortnightly basis by debiting the CENVAT account to the extent of available balance in that account. Later, the applicants paid arrears of duty of excise along with interest in terms of Rule 8(4) of the said Rules. By a show cause notice dated 4-12-2003, the applicants ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8-6-2001, they could not discharge the duty in accordance with law. It is also argued that there was no breach of the provisions of Rule 173G of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules and that there was no suppression or wilful mis-statement on their part and hence the larger period is not invocable. 4. Heard both sides. 5. During the currency of the forfeiture order dated 4-6-2001, t....