2006 (8) TMI 52

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....calation of price of goods. Hence, the appellant raised supplementary in voices during the period 2000-01 for the escalation of prices. The appellant raise supplementary invoices for the clearances made during the period 1997-98 to 1999-2000. During the period May, 2000 to September, 2001 the appellant deposited the amount partly from PLA and partly from RG-23A, Part-II. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant on the ground that they have not indicated the issuance of supplementary invoices for the earlier period, and hence have suppressed the information from the department, and they had no balance in the CENVAT and as well as PLA during the relevant period when the supplementary invoices were raised. The show cause notice sought to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CEE, Delhi-III, Gurgaon v. Machino Montell (I) Ltd. as reported at 2004 (168) E.L.T. 466 (Tri.-LB). 4. Learned D.R. on the other hand submits that the question of discharging the duty liability through RG23A, Part II does not arise as the appellant is required to pay the duty at the time of raising the supplementary invoices Since they have not paid the duty for the period 16-7-2000 to 31-8-2000 impugned order is correct there absolutely no reason for interfering with the order. 5. Considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the record. I find from the record that the dispute is regarding duty libility not discharged by the appellant for the period 1-5-2000 to 31-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d September, 2001. It is not alleged nor also is the contention of the Revenue that when the duty was paid in March, 2001 and September, 2001 there was no balance in RG23A, Part II account. Since this allegation or contention is not raised in the show cause notice as well in the Order-in-Original, it has to be presumed that the appellant had balance in their RG23A, Part II when they debited the amount. Though it may be a fact that they have paid the duty belatedly, nevertheless the duty liability has been discharged. Asking them to pay the same amount of duty through PLA for the only reason that if they would have discharged the duty liability during the relevant period when it was due they would have to discharge the same through PLA is in....