2008 (10) TMI 513

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The relevant facts of the case in brief, are that the Respondents is a small scale unit, which had been facing acute financial hardship due to blockage of the funds by the customers and, therefore, there was delay in payment of duty under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The payment of duty for the month of February 2006 was paid on 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Tribunal in the case of Calcom Vision Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut-I reported in 2002 (142) E.L.T. 383 (Tri.-Delhi) held that forfeiture of maximum period of two months is not mandatory. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court reported in 2002 (52) RLT 755. 2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the main contention of the learned Join....