2015 (10) TMI 843 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of interest u/s 11AB - Assessee contends that demand of interest was not quantified in the show cause notice and therefore, such show cause notice has no validity - Held that - Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Kwality Ice Cream Company (2012 (1) TMI 88 - Delhi High Court ), held that period of limitation prescribed for claim of principal amount should also apply to the claim for interest thereon. In view of that, the Commissioner (Appeals) is required to examine as to whether the demand of interest is barred by limitation in the light of the decision of the Hon ble High Court. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against demand of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act 1944, validity of show cause notice, quantification of interest demand, applicability of limitation period for interest claim, remand to Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD involved a dispute regarding the demand of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act 1944. The Adjudicating Authority had dropped the interest demand but imposed a penalty of &8377; 10,000, which led the Revenue to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Revenue's appeal, prompting the appellant to challenge this decision before the Tribunal.

The main contention raised by the appellant's Learned Advocate was that the demand of interest was not quantified in the show cause notice, rendering it invalid. Citing legal precedents, the advocate argued that the demand for interest, raised for a specific period, was time-barred. The Advocate highlighted the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in a particular case to support this argument. Notably, the appellant had already paid the duty in question, indicating that they were not contesting the duty amount but solely the interest demand.

On the other side, the Authorized Representative for Revenue contended that the quantified demand of interest amounted to &8377; 8,03,371 as per a specific communication from the Dy. Commissioner. The Tribunal noted the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a similar case, emphasizing that the limitation period for the principal amount should also apply to the interest claim.

Consequently, the Tribunal found it necessary to remand the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh examination of all issues in compliance with the law. The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal by way of remand, indicating that the Commissioner (Appeals) needed to reassess the demand of interest in light of the legal principles discussed during the proceedings.