2008 (7) TMI 538 - AT - Customs

Interest demand of interest at appropriate rate quantification of interest Held that - The assessee is not expected to quantify the interest amount on his own and then to deposit the 50% of the same. As such, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal for non-compliance of his directions is not sustain able.

Summary

Issues:
Quantification of interest amount for appellant's liability and compliance with directions of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding deposit of interest.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad involved a case where the Adjudicating Authority confirmed interest against the appellant on the principal differential duty amount, but failed to quantify the interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the interest without quantifying the amount, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's appeal for non-compliance with Section 129E of Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found that without quantification of interest, the appellant could not determine the required deposit amount, rendering the appeal dismissal unsustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the interest amount remained unquantified by any authority post the initial order. As a result, the appellant was not aware of the exact amount to be deposited. The Tribunal criticized the Commissioner (Appeals) for requiring the appellant to deposit 50% of the interest without quantification, stating that the appellant should not be expected to self-calculate the interest amount. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remanded the matter for a fresh decision, emphasizing that if the Revenue quantifies the interest amount, the appellant could file a fresh stay petition for consideration.

In conclusion, the Tribunal deemed the dismissal of the appellant's appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) as unsustainable due to the lack of quantification of interest amount, and directed a fresh decision on the matter. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper quantification of liabilities before directing deposits and emphasized the need for compliance with legal provisions in such cases.