2006 (5) TMI 286

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....I/43/2003/6060A, dated 7-11-2003. The application was initiated against the said show-cause notice. 2. In brief, the applicant company was engaged in manufacturing Refactory Bricks materials falling under first schedule of the C.E. Tariff Act, 1985. The applicant was discharging their duty liability as per Rule 8 of the C.E. Rules, 2002 and was found to have defaulted in payment of duty amounting to Rs. 9,67,200/- for removal of excisable goods during the second fortnight of March 2002. The said duty was not paid within 30 days along with interest, which is required under the provisions of Rule 8(3) of the said Rule. Accordingly, Deputy Commissioner, C.E., Rourkela-II Division by virtue of the provisions of Rule 8(4) of the said Rul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... U/s 32E of the C. E. Act was called for and a reply was received on 30-3-2006 from the respondent commissioner, which we have perused. In the said report the Respondent Commissioner narrated the fact mentioned above. He submitted that the applicant paid the entire duty amount in PLA entries in January 2005 and February 2005. He also submitted that provisions of Rule 8(3) and 8(4) are very clear and the applicant violated deeming provisions of law inasmuch as they have debited the duty liability from their Cenvat account. He cited an identical case of GKW Ltd., Titiagarh, in which it was categorically held if the amount is paid from the Cenvat account and not in PLA, by virtue of the deeming provisions of law, the clearance have to be consi....