2016 (6) TMI 573 - AT - Central Excise

Chargeability - Interest on duty demanded - payable by retrospective amendment in the Finance Bill 2011 enacted on 8.4.2011 for the period 29.4.2010 to 31.03.2011 which is prior to date of enactment of Finance Act, 2011 - Held that - when the duty became payable only on 8.4.2011, though it is payable for the period prior to 8.4.2011 the duty is recoverable but interest cannot be demanded for the period prior to 8.4.2011. We find that when the duty itself was not leviable during the period before 8.4.2011 which became payable only on 8.4.2011, how the interest can be demanded for the period when duty was not payable. The appellant admittedly paid interest for the delay from 8.4.2011 till the date of payment which is alone is recoverable and not before the said period. Therefore, as per settled position of law in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Indore Vs. Premier Industries Ltd. 2009 (2) TMI 695 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , interest on retrospective levy of duty as per Finance Act, 2011 is not chargeable for the period prior to date of enactment of Finance Act, 2011 i.e. 8.4.2011. As regard the submission of the Ld. AR that against the aforesaid decision the Revenue has filed an appeal in the Hon ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, the Ld. A.R. could not produce any stay of operation of the Tribunal s above referred decision, therefore as a judicial discipline, we have no option accept to follow the ratio of the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal. - Decided against the Revenue

Summary

Issues Involved:
Whether interest is chargeable on the confirmed demand of duty which became payable by retrospective amendment in the Finance Bill 2011 for the period prior to the date of enactment.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interest Chargeability on Retrospective Duty Demand
The appeal pertains to a confirmed demand of duty against the assessee, M/s. JCB India Ltd., for the period from 29.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. The central issue is whether interest is leviable on the duty demand retrospectively imposed by the Finance Act, 2011, effective from 8.4.2011. The Revenue contended that interest is applicable as per Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, citing relevant case laws. The respondent argued that duty became payable only from the date of enactment, i.e., 8.4.2011, and interest was paid for the period post this date. The Tribunal analyzed the retrospective duty imposition scenario and held that interest cannot be demanded for the period before the enactment date, aligning with the decision in Premier Industries Ltd. case. The Tribunal emphasized that duty was not payable before the enactment, thus, interest is not chargeable for the previous period.

Judicial Precedents and Interpretation
The Tribunal referenced various judgments to support its decision, emphasizing the distinction between duty payable in the normal course and duty retrospectively imposed. Notably, the Premier Industries Ltd. case established that interest on retrospective duty levy is not applicable for the period pre-enactment. The Tribunal highlighted the absence of statutory provisions making interest payable for duty retrospectively imposed before the enactment date. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the settled legal position and the lack of stay on the Premier Industries Ltd. case, making it binding on the current proceedings.

Conclusion
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the order dropping interest demand for the period preceding the retrospective duty imposition date. By aligning with the established legal principles and precedents, the Tribunal concluded that interest on duty retrospectively levied under the Finance Act, 2011, is not chargeable for the period before the enactment date, emphasizing the non-liability of interest when duty was not payable during that time.

This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the legal judgment, focusing on the key issue of interest chargeability on retrospective duty demands and the Tribunal's decision based on statutory interpretation and judicial precedents.