2006 (9) TMI 411 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability to pay interest on duty under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act.
2. Applicability of interest on duty from a specific date as per legal provisions.
3. Interpretation of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11AA regarding the timeline for payment of interest.

Analysis:

1. The case involved a dispute regarding the payment of interest on duty under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act. The appellants contested the demand for interest imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, arguing that interest should only be payable from the date when the Supreme Court allowed the civil appeals. The department, however, relied on legal provisions and previous decisions to support the imposition of interest from an earlier date.

2. The Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 11AA and the timeline of events in the case. The duty was determined by the original authority under sub-section (2) of Section 11A on a specific date. The Tribunal noted that the duty amount was paid by the party in installments beyond the period specified in the proviso to Section 11A(1). As a result of the default in payment within the stipulated time frame, the appellants were held liable to pay interest on the duty amount from a date determined by the legal provisions.

3. The Tribunal addressed the arguments presented by both parties regarding the applicability of Section 11AA and the interpretation of the proviso to sub-section (1). The appellants' reliance on a specific sub-section of Section 11AA was refuted, emphasizing that the duty became payable on a date prior to the enactment mentioned in that sub-section. The Tribunal also highlighted previous decisions and legal precedents to support the Commissioner's decision to demand interest from a specific date as per the proviso.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Commissioner's decision to demand interest on the duty amount from a date determined by the legal provisions. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal framework, previous decisions, and the specific timeline of events in the case to support the decision.