2011 (3) TMI 1194 - AT - Central Excise

Stay application - department insisted assessee to pay the interest on the duties which were paid voluntarily for the extended period of limitation - whether order was not self explanatory? - Held that - It is an admitted fact that the extended period of limitation is not invocable in this case as per the order. It is coming out that the interest has been asked on the payment made by the appellants voluntarily prior to the period of limitation which is totally confusing the impugned order. Therefore the order is not correct - send back the matter to the adjudicating authority to clarify the impugned order as to what is payable by the appellants and what is not payable by them.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal
2. Interpretation of the impugned order regarding interest payment on duties
3. Correctness of the impugned order and clarification of the amount payable

Delay in filing the appeal:
The appellants filed an appeal along with a stay application and an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The advocate for the appellant explained that the impugned order by the Commissioner was not self-explanatory, leading to confusion regarding the payment of interest on duties demanded. The delay in filing the appeal was satisfactorily explained, and the Tribunal condoned the delay, proceeding to take up the appeal for final disposal.

Interpretation of the impugned order regarding interest payment on duties:
The impugned order confirmed demands of duties against the assesses for a specific period and directed payment of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, it was noted that the extended period of limitation was not applicable in this case, and confusion arose regarding the interest demanded on payments made voluntarily by the appellants prior to the period of limitation. The Tribunal found the impugned order to be incorrect and in the interest of justice, remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to clarify the amount payable by the appellants as per the order.

Correctness of the impugned order and clarification of the amount payable:
Upon reviewing the impugned order, the Tribunal found discrepancies and confusion regarding the interest demanded on payments made voluntarily by the appellants. It was concluded that the order required clarification from the adjudicating authority to determine what amount was payable by the appellants. Therefore, the appeal was allowed by way of remand for clarification of the amount payable as per the impugned order, and the stay application was disposed of accordingly.