2015 (1) TMI 799 - HC - Central Excise

Demand of interest - Delay in payment of duty - Held that - On the basis of the representation made on the side of the appellant, this Court has perused all the final orders and ultimately found that even without hearing the contention put forth on the side of the appellant, the CESTAT has simply upheld the orders passed by the Commissioner of Appeals and since in these matters, an important question of law involves and since no opportunity has been given to the appellant by the CESTAT, this Court is of the view to set aside the Final Orders in question and remit the matters to the file of CESTAT. Since the matters are liable to be remitted to the file of CESTAT, the substantial questions of law settled in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals need not be decided. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Levy of interest on central excise duty
2. Application of principles of natural justice
3. Law of limitation on interest collection

Levy of Interest on Central Excise Duty:
The appellant, engaged in the business of steels, was required to pay central excise duty, which was paid belatedly. Show cause notices were issued regarding the demand of interest, leading to Orders-in-Original confirming the demands. The Commissioner of Appeals also upheld these orders. Subsequently, the CESTAT dismissed all appeals filed by the appellant against these decisions. The appellant argued that the CESTAT confirmed the orders without considering their grounds and without providing adequate opportunities for the appellant to present their case. Consequently, the High Court found that the CESTAT had not given the appellant a fair hearing and set aside the final orders, remitting the matters back to the CESTAT for further consideration.

Application of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant contended that the CESTAT did not afford them sufficient opportunity to present their case and consider their grounds of appeal. The High Court, upon reviewing the final orders and finding that the CESTAT had not adequately heard the appellant's contentions, concluded that the failure to provide an opportunity for the appellant to present their case violated principles of natural justice. As a result, the High Court set aside the final orders and directed the CESTAT to reconsider the matters with due consideration to both sides.

Law of Limitation on Interest Collection:
The substantial questions of law settled for consideration included whether the law of limitation of one year under Section 11A of the Act applied to the collection of interest and whether the recovery of interest was barred by the general law of limitation. However, due to the High Court's decision to set aside the final orders and remit the matters to the CESTAT for a fair hearing, these questions were not conclusively decided. The High Court emphasized the importance of providing sufficient opportunity to both parties in legal proceedings and directed the CESTAT to ensure a fair process and pass suitable orders on merit after reconsideration.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, set aside the Final Orders passed by the CESTAT, and remitted the matters back to the CESTAT for reconsideration with proper opportunity for both sides to present their case.