2010 (7) TMI 291 - HC - Central Excise

Interest - delayed payment of excise duty - liability to pay the excise duty arose, in the present case, prior to 28-9-1996 - penalty under Section 11AC of the Act was prospective.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of order directing payment of interest for delayed excise duty payment.
2. Maintainability of second petition on the same cause of action.
3. Liability to pay interest under Section 11AB of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought quashing of an order directing payment of interest for delayed excise duty payment. The liability arose before 28-9-1996, and the petitioner argued that interest should not apply as per Section 11AB(2) of the Act. The Settlement Commission settled the duty liability but directed payment of interest from 28-9-1996. The petitioner contended that interest demand was not justified as there was no provision for it when goods were cleared in 1995.

2. The Court found the petition without merit. The first writ petition was withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh one. Citing legal precedent, the Court held that a second petition on the same cause of action was not maintainable. The Supreme Court's ruling in Sarbuja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal was referenced to support this decision.

3. Regarding the liability to pay interest under Section 11AB of the Act, the Court ruled against the petitioner. While interest may not be payable for the period before the provision's enforcement, the liability for future periods remains. The petitioner's failure to pay the amount due from 1996 to 2005 justified the interest demand. Citing the case of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P. & Others, the Court emphasized that interest for delayed payment is generally payable unless prohibited by law or contract. The petitioner's challenge to the levy of interest after availing immunity from prosecution was deemed impermissible.

4. The petitioner referenced various judgments, including Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. Elgi Equipments Ltd., and Commissioner of Central Excise v. Telco, to support their argument. However, the Court distinguished these judgments and ruled against the petitioner. The petitioner's reliance on the failure of the Settlement Commission to consider the waiver of interest in M/s. Competent Engineers v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jalandhar was also dismissed.

5. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition in light of the above analysis and findings.