2003 (12) TMI 185

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt was not represented even at the time of stay hearing. Accordingly, we have heard Shri T.K. Kar, learned SDR and have gone through the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). 2. As per facts on record, the duty has been confirmed against the respondent for the months September, 2000, October, 2000 and November, 2000 on the ground that their Range Superintendent passed an order dated 18-12-2000 intimating the respondent that facility of payment of duty in instalments is forfeited and the respondent should pay duty on consignment basis by debiting the same from their PLA for a period of next two months. The Respondents accepted the above order of the Superintendent and started paying duty on the goods clear....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt period provides that if a manufacturer defaults in payment of C. Ex. duty in instalment for reason mentioned in sub-clause (i) or (ii) of the said rule he shall forfeit the facility to pay the dues in instalments for "a period of two months, starting from the date of communication of an order passed by the proper officer in this regard". So, for the purpose of operating upon forfeiture an order is required to be passed by a proper officer in this regard. I find that the Notification issued under Rule 2 of the CER '44 designated the Asstt. Commissioner or Dy. Commissioner of C. Ex. as the proper officer in this regard. So, the order forfeiting the facility as passed by the Supdt. is not legal and as such proceedings initiated for violatio....