TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (5) TMI 63
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the excise duty for the first fortnight of the month became payable by the 20th day of the month and the duty for the second fortnight of the month became payable by the 5th day of the succeeding month instead of paying duty on each consignment. On default, the assessee would be liable to pay the outstanding amount along with the interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Rule 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read as under : "RULE 173G, Procedure to be followed by the assessee". - (1)(a) Every manufacturer, other than a manufacturer who is availing of the exemption under a notification based on value of clearances in a financial year, shall discharge his duty liability in respect of clearances of excisable goods from the place or premises specified under rule 9 or from a storeroom or other place of storage approved by the Commissioner under rule 47 made : (i) During the first fortnight of the month, by the twentieth day of that month; (ii) During the second fortnight of the month, other than the month of March, by the fifth day of the succeeding month; and (iii) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....debiting from the Cenvat account. 5. The Ministry of Finance issued Notification No. 48/2000, dated 18-8-2000 by which a proviso was inserted to Central Excise Rules 57AB, sub-rule (1B), by which it was made clear that the Cenvat credit available on 15th day of the month for payment of duty relating to the first fortnight of the month and the Cenvat credit available on the last date of the month for payment of duty relating to the second fortnight of the month could only be utilised for discharging the duty liability of the assessee for that particular fortnight. 6. It is submitted that the Official Gazette consisting of notification dated 18-8-2000 was not available for sale to the general public and thus the notification could not be said to be effective from such date. The Ministry of Finance vide its Circular No. 542/38/2000/CX., dated 25-8-2000 also clarified and publicised the said amendment under the Central Excise Rules. It is mentioned by the petitioner that it submitted RT-12 return for the month of August, 2000 on 6-9-2000 to the Central Excise Department specifically showing the accrual of Cenvat credit and the payment of duty. It is alleged in the petition that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fication dated 18-8-2000 was clear and unambiguous. The petitioner company debited duty on 19-8-2000 without having adequate balance amount in its Cenvat account. 11. Section 11A of the Central Excise Act stipulates that the objection can be raised within 6 months from the relevant date in normal circumstances and within 5 years in case the assessee has not paid the excise duty, as is in the present case, by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of the Central Excise Act or of the rules made thereunder with the intent of evading the payment of duty. Section 11A of the Central Excise Act reads as under : "11A. Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded. - (1) When any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, a Central Excise Officer may, within one year from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the duty which has not been levied or paid or which has been short-levied or short-paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the public. In the present case the letter from the Assistant Collector (Periodicals) dated 2-1-1986 indicates that the date of the gazette containing the Notification dated 30-9-1985 after printing became available for public sale only on 1-11-1985. It must, therefore, be held that the effective date of Notification dated 30-9-1985 was 1-11-1985. 15. Mr. Aggarwal also placed reliance on Collector of Central Excise v. New Tobacco Co. (1998 (97) E.L.T. 388 (S.C.). In this case the Court observed that unless the gazette containing the notification is made available to the public, the notification cannot be said to have been duly published. 16. In this sequence reliance has also been placed on the Excise Superintendent, Warangal District & Others etc. etc. v. M/s. Deluxe Bar, Kazipet, Warangal & Ors. etc. etc. [2001 (1) SCALE 98]. 17. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents placed reliance on a judgment by a three 3.Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. Ganesh Das, Bhojraj [2000 (116) E.L.T. 431 (S.C.) = 2000 9 SCC 461 ]. In this case their Lordships of the Supreme Court discussed the number of earlier Judgments and came to the conclusion t....