CEA 97 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CEA No. 97 of 2009 Date of decision 30 .11.2009 Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Ludhiana ... appellants Versus M/s Freeman measure Pvt. Ltd. ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for Indirect taxes.Advocate for the appellant 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. This appeal filed under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act,1944 is directed against order dated 27.1.2009 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi(for brevity 'the Tribunal'). It has been claimed that the following substantial question of law would emerge from the order of the Tribunal. “ Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that forfeiture period of two months under the provisions of sub rule 3A of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for each instance of default would run concurrently ?” It is undisputed that the dealer- respondent defaulted in discharging the monthly excise duty liability by the 5th of the following months in respect of July, 2005, August, 2005, January, 2006, February, 2006 and March, 2006. On each occasion either part of the amount due or the entire CEA 97 of 2009 2 due amount for the month was paid after the expiry of period of 30 days from the due date and it would attract penal consequences like forfeiture of facility to pay the due in monthly instalments for a period of two months. Five different show cause notices were issued alleging contravention of Rule 8(i) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on five different occasions spread over from July, 2005 to April, 2006 and the five orders were adjudicated by a common order dated 22.9.2006. The dispute has arisen as to whether the forfeiture of period of two months for each instance i.e. penalty would run concurrently or it was to run continuously. According to sub rule 3(A) of Rule 8 of the rules, the forfeiture of period of two months is imposed for each instance of penalty. From a perusal of rule 3(A) of the Rules it is clear that the period of penalty shall be two months from the date from which the entire due alongwith interest is paid or from the date of communication of the order whichever is later. The entire dues alongwith interest in the instant case had been paid for each instance after the period of 30 days but within two months from the respective due dates. Accordingly, the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the period of penalty to two months by invoking later half of the provisions of sub rule 3 (A) of Rule 8. which has been upheld by the Tribunal. Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the view that if the appellant has preferred to pass one consolidated order in respect of five show cause notices then the provisions of sub rule 3 A of Rule 8 of the rules are attracted which make it clear that two months period would run either from the date of order or from the date of payment. The amounts due having been paid just after 30 days and within two months for each respective instance, then the forfeiture of the facility to pay dues in monthly CEA 97 of 2009 3 instalments would be for a period of two months from the date of passing of communication of the order. The order for each instance being a common order, the period of two months would in the facts and circumstances of this case necessarily run concurrently. No question of law much less a substantive question of law would arise for determination of this Court. The appeal does not warrant admission. Accordingly the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jaswant Singh) 30.11.2009 Judge okg