2008 (6) TMI 501

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... A.K. Mishra, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  Common issue is involved in these appeals and therefore, all are being taken up together for disposal. 2. All the cases, the respondents had delayed in discharging duty liability by not paying it on due dates in contravention of Rule 8(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Adjudicating Authority had ordered forfeiture of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Tribunal in the case of Calcom Vision Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut-I reported in 2002 (142) E.L.T. 383 (Tri.-Del.) held that forfeiture facility for a maximum period of two months is not mandatory. So, the contention of the learned DR that in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Calcom Vision Ltd. (supra) is not acceptable. Now, the reduction of the period of forfeiture facility by the Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g before BIFR, and as such, the amounts could not be deposited by the respondent-company, within the time and as soon as it was in a position to make the payment, the respondent-company made the payment not only of the duty, but also of the interest calculated under Rule 8(3) of the Rules. Therefore, we have no doubt in our mind that the Tribunal has correctly interpreted Rule 25 of the Rules and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wani Tubes (P) Ltd. paid the duty of Rs. 7,49,285/- within due date and there was a delay of payment of Rs. 45,289/- which was paid with interest. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Banian & Berry Bearing Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India reported in 2002 (52) RLT 755 (Guj.), has held as under :- "However, considering the fact that in para 8 of the order dated 28-5-2002 the Additional Commi....