2010 (3) TMI 969 - AT - Central Excise

Liability of interest foe unpaid default amount - recovery - Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - there is no infirmity with the notice issued under the applicable provisions of Section 142(1)(C)(ii) of Customs Act, 1962, when the respondent has not challenged the principal demand unpaid. Accordingly the consequence that follows from the principal demand defaulted is to resort to process of necessary - we set aside the first appellate order and uphold the action of the learned Deputy Commissioner, who was correct in law to issue the demand notice - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order holding recovery notice for interest as non-appealable.
2. Validity of notice issued for recovery of interest.
3. Interpretation of Section 142(1)(C)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to issue attachment notice.
5. Compliance with the Customs Act for recovery process.
6. Upholding the appeal of revenue.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the revenue challenging the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 23-2-05, which held that the notice issued for recovery of interest was not appealable. The revenue argued that the notice for recovery of interest is a consequence of the law to be realized through the recovery process. The Deputy Commissioner issued a notice of demand under Section 142(1)(C)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962, which was considered executable for recovery. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the notice and set aside the first appellate order, upholding the action of the Deputy Commissioner in issuing the demand notice.

2. The Tribunal observed that once the demand crystallized, the process of recovery under Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962 was initiated. The notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner for recovery of the defaulted amount was found to be enforceable and within jurisdiction. The Tribunal emphasized that the recovery procedure is implicit in the law itself, as stated in Section 142 of the Customs Act. Since the confirmation of the demand was not challenged, the recovery with interest became unchallengeable, bringing it to the first appellate forum.

3. The Tribunal concluded that the notice of attachment issued by the Deputy Commissioner was valid and in compliance with the provisions of the Customs Act. The Tribunal appreciated the legal correctness of the Deputy Commissioner's action in issuing the demand notice and upheld the appeal of the revenue. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions for recovery processes and emphasized the enforceability of demands arising from unpaid principal amounts under the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal, comprising Shri D.N. Panda and Rakesh Kumar, JJ., allowed the appeal of the revenue, setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and upholding the validity of the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner for recovery of interest under Section 142(1)(C)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment underscored the significance of following the statutory procedures for recovery of defaulted amounts and affirmed the authority of the Deputy Commissioner to issue the demand notice for enforcement.