2008 (5) TMI 577

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant. Ms. Sudha Koka, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - This appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 367/2006 (V-I) C.E., dated 11-12-2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Visakhapatnam. 2. Mr. S. Vittal Shetty, learned Advocate, appeared for the appellant and Ms. Sudha Koka, Seamed SDR, for the Revenue....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bruary 2002 and Rs. 4,52,959/- from March 2002 to May 2002 under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11A. Interest under Section 11AB read with Rule 8(3) was demanded a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed under Rule 25. However, the Joint Commissioner issued a corrigendum dated 7-4-2003 to his Order-in-Original dated 10-4-2003, in terms of the corrigendum a penalty was enhanced to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ny reasons for such enhancements clearly established that the entire penalty is arbitrarily decided without any basis. In CBEC's Excise Manual of Supplementary Instruction 2005 in chapter 13 Para 4.2 it has been laid down that the Adjudicating Authority is not empowered to issue any subsequent corrigendum making material changes in the order already passed. There cannot be any restriction for util....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the impugned orders. 7. On a careful consideration of the issue, we find that the facility of deferred payment has been withdrawn without issuing show cause notice. This is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Punjab & Haryana (cited supra) in the case of Krishna Engineering Works Ltd. has held that the facility and payment of duty on fortnightly basis should be forfeited....