TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (3) TMI 564
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. - In this appeal, the Revenue has made challenge to the impugned order vide which the adjudicating authority has failed to confirm the duty demand as per the terms of the show cause notice, but only ordered that the Asstt. Commissioner's order dated 31-8-2001 regarding the duty and penalty would be followed. 2. The ld. SDR has contended ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and penalty thereon. 3. On the other hand, ld. Counsel has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order and contended that after the fortnight ending 31-10-2000, duty was paid through the account current and as such, the respondents complied with the terms of the order of the Asstt. Commissioner. He has further contended that payment of duty from RG 23 thereafter during the months of Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 2001 as the said the order was passed on 31-8-2001, as is evident from the bare reading of Rule 8(4) of the Central Excise Rules. The respondents could not pay the duty from RG 23. But they still paid the duty from RG 23 and as such this payment cannot be equated with the payment from the account current in the terms of the above said rule. That being so, they are liable to pay the duty from the....