2023 (1) TMI 687 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of interest on late payment of National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) - July, 2017 to July, 2019 in respect of Unit-I and August, 2017 to July, 2019 for Unit-II - HELD THAT - The interest is payable for default in depositing the tax by the due date voluntarily or after determination of the amount of duty under Section 11A. Here both the conditions are not available to Revenue as admittedly neither there is any determination of duty liability of NCCD under Section 11A, nor there is voluntary default in deposit of the amount of NCCD. In absence of condition precedent in Section 11AA of the Act, no interest can be demanded from the appellant assessee. Further taking judicial notice that the appellant was prevented from deposit of dues, due to glitch on the portal, which is wholly attributable to inaction on the part of Revenue. Thus, Revenue cannot take advantage of its wrong doing, by levy of interest. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-appeal confirming demand of interest on late payment of National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) for specific periods for two manufacturing units.

Analysis:
1. Levy of NCCD and GST: The appellant, a manufacturing unit producing tobacco products, was required to pay GST along with NCCD as per Section 136 of the Finance Act, 2001. The implementation of the CGST Act, 2017 did not exempt the appellant from NCCD payment due to the provisions of Section 174 of the CGST Act.

2. Late Payment Issue: The appellant faced technical glitches on the Government portal preventing timely NCCD deposit. Despite informing the authorities and providing evidence, the portal did not accept payments. The appellant diligently filed returns, disclosed NCCD dues, and communicated the issue through various correspondences and monthly returns.

3. Show Cause Notice: The Department issued a show cause notice for interest on delayed NCCD deposit, alleging fraud and suppression. The Adjudicating Authority found no deliberate non-payment or fraud on the appellant's part, acknowledging the technical difficulties faced and the appellant's efforts to resolve the issue.

4. Decision of Commissioner (Appeals): The Commissioner upheld the demand for interest, citing the mandatory nature of interest levy under Section 11AA without provision for relief or condonation. The appellant contested this decision before the Tribunal.

5. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal, after considering arguments, held that interest cannot be demanded in the absence of duty determination under Section 11A or voluntary default in NCCD deposit. Noting the Revenue's inaction in resolving the portal glitch, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the order and granting consequential benefits.

6. Legal Precedents: The appellant's counsel cited various legal precedents supporting their case, emphasizing the appellant's efforts to comply with payment obligations despite hindrances beyond their control.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, highlighting the Revenue's failure to address the portal issue, which prevented timely NCCD deposit. The judgment emphasized that interest cannot be levied in the absence of specific conditions under the law, providing relief to the appellant and granting consequential benefits in accordance with the law.