In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh C.E.A. No. 91 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 14, 2009 Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana …Appellant Versus M/s Garg Steels & Agro Industries …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The revenue has filed the instant appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) against the order dated 20.10.2008 (A-4), passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’). The finding of the Tribunal recorded in the concluding para of the impugned order dated 20.10.2008 (A-4) is that it was undisputed that the amount equal to the monthly duty liability had been paid every month by the dealer-respondent under TR-6 Challan and their only lapse was that after taking credit of the amount deposited under TR-6 Challan, in the Permanent Ledger Account CEA No. 91 of 2009 (O&M) (PLA) they did not make the debit entry therein. The stand in reply to the show cause notice issued to the dealer-respondent is also clear that Rs. 2,05,707/- was deposited vide TR-5 Challan dated 30.3.1998 but the said amount was not shown as credited in PLA, which could be done only on 4.1.1999. They had also deposited a sum of Rs. 12,850/- towards interest vide TR-6 Challan No. 14, dated 30.3.1998 for the delayed payment of duty up to 30.3.1998. It is pertinent to mention that the PLA is maintained by the dealer-respondent for their own convenience. In view of the aforesaid findings of fact, we do not find that there was any default committed by the dealer-respondent in depositing the amount of duty although there was some delay which have been made up by paying interest on 30.3.1998. Therefore, no ground is made for admission of the appeal. Dismissed. In view of the fact that the appeal has been dismissed on merits, no orders are required to be passed on the miscellaneous applications filed along with the appeal. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JASWANT SINGH) September 14, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 2