TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (8) TMI 837
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n fortnightly basis as per the proviso to Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On various occasions, the petitioners did not have sufficient balance in their outstanding duty on the due dates for payment of duty. The sum total of outstanding duty on the due dates was ₹ 16,15,569/-. This outstanding amount was paid later on different occasions along with due interest from the CENVAT account. The petitioners were served with the show cause notice dated 29.11.2001 calling upon the petitioners to show cause why the aforesaid amount of excise duty should not be recovered from the petitioners through the current account; to show cause why interest at the prescribed rate should not be charged and recovered from the petitioners and why ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lments under erstwhile Rule 173G(1)(3)"of the 1944 Rules and under Rule 8(4) of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 for a period of two months from the date of service of the order. During the said period, the petitioner is required to pay excise duty for each consignment by debit to the account current i.e. through PLA only and in the event of any failure, it shall be deemed that such goods have been cleared without payment of duty. In short, during this period, the petitioner is not to be allowed to utilize CENVAT credit for discharge of central excise duty. 4. Mr. PM Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that prior to 18.8.2000, under the erstwhile scheme the petitioners were permitted to clear the goods by fak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the petition. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears to the Court that the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise (Tech.), Ahmedabad-II had gone into the entire controversy and had held that the show cause notice dated 29.11.2001 had failed and, therefore, notice was discharged. The impugned order dated 3.7.2002 at Annexure "E" is based on the same facts which were the subject matter of the show cause notice dated 29.11.2001. A bare perusal of the contents of Annexure "A" to the show cause notice (Annexure "C") and the dates given in the impugned order at Annexure "E" more than substantiate the petitioners' case that the impugned order is based on the same facts on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i.e. ₹ 80,000/-. Therefore, the amount of ₹ 20,000/- will remain outstanding for the said fortnight, and the same will have to be paid along with interest in terms of relevant portion of Rule 49 reproduced earlier in this order. There is no bar anywhere for payment of this outstanding amount from the credit of ₹ 50,000/- which has been earned later provided the due interest is also paid. It would be absurd to suggest that Cenvat account cannot be utilized for payment of arrears of outstanding duties. The interest on duty in terms of Rule 49 partakes the character of duty and hence it to can be paid from the Cenvat credit without any separate account. However, considering the fact that in para 8 of the order dated 28.5.200....