CEA No. 82 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CEA No. 82 of 2009 Date of decision 8.9.2009 Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate ... Appellant Versus M/s Forex Fastners Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Gurpreet Singh ,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. The instant appeal filed by the revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is directed against order dated 24.10.2008 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity 'the Tribunal'). The revenue has raised the following substantive questions of law: “i)Whether the Tribunal can go beyond the statutory provisions as provided under the Central Excise Rules, 2002; ii)Whether the Tribunal can modify the mandatory penalty period of two months provided under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in cases where it was established that the assessee had defaulted in payment of monthly duty in contravention of the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules thereby attracting the provisions of Rule 8(3A) of the Rules” ? The dealer M/s Forex Fastners Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in the CEA No. 82 of 2009 2 manufacture of nuts, bolts and washers falling under Chapter sub heading No. 73 of the first schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The dealer was discharging duty liability on the finished goods in terms of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (for brevity 'the Rules'). On scrutiny of return in respect of the month of February, 2006 it was found that they had assessed total duty liability on the finished goods as Rs. 7,24,041/-. The duty was required to be discharged by 5th of March, 2006 but the dealer had paid an amount of Rs. 5,61,041/- by debiting CENVAT credit account and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,63,000/- was shown to have been deposited vide TR 6 Challan No. 2 dated 6.2.2006. On questioning they submitted copy of TR 6 challan showing deposit of duty on 12.4.2006 which was beyond the period of 30 days from the due date. It was found that the delay has resulted in contravention of Rule 8 of the Rules. Accordingly a show cause notice for forfeiture to pay duty in monthly instalments for a period of two months and for recovery of interest amounting to Rs. 2,150/- was issued. The order-in-original was passed on 12.12.2006 which ordered forfeiture of facility of payment of duty on monthly basis for a period of two months starting from the date of communication of the order or till such date on which all dues are paid, whichever is later (P.1). The dealer filed an appeal before the Commissioner (A) who modified the original order on 29.12.2006 by reducing the period of two months for forfeiture of facility of payment of duty on monthly basis to 12 days from the date of communication of the said order (P.2). Against the aforesaid order, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which upheld the appellate order by dismissing the appeal vide order dated 24.10.2008 which is subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal. CEA No. 82 of 2009 3 We have asked the learned counsel to disclose the total amount of revenue loss in the appeal. He has conceded that the tax effect may not be substantial but he has argued that on the language of Rule 8 of the Rules no option would be available to the authorities to grant any relaxation. Having heard the learned counsel for the revenue we are of the view that the instant appeal does not involve any substantial amount warranting consideration of question of law raised. Therefore, we leave open the question of law which may be decided in some appropriate case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jaswant Singh) 8.9.2009 Judge okg