9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (10) TMI 75 - AT - Central ExciseInterest for delay in payment of additional duty of excise (G.S. I.) No provision in the statue at the relevant time for payment of interest Demand for claiming interest on late payment is not sustainable
Issues: Liability of appellants to pay interest for delay in payment of additional duty of excise under Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai dealt with the issue of the liability of the appellants engaged in processing man-made fabrics to pay interest for delay in payment of additional duty of excise. The Tribunal noted that a similar case involving M/s. Parekh Prints upheld the levy of additional duty of excise and directed payment of interest. However, the appellants in the present case withdrew their writ petition before the Delhi High Court, which led to the Commissioner's directive for interest being questioned. The Tribunal highlighted that there was no provision in the statute at the relevant time for payment of interest. It referenced the decision in the case of Prestige Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, which held that Excise authorities are not empowered to award interest without specific provisions. The Tribunal distinguished the case of Ujagar Textile Industries (P) Ltd., where the High Court had passed an order dismissing a writ petition, unlike in the present case. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the demand for payment of interest was not sustainable and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the demand for payment of interest for delay in payment of additional duty of excise was not sustainable due to the absence of specific provisions in the statute at the relevant time. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of legal provisions and court orders in determining the liability for interest in such cases, ultimately setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.
|
