2017 (3) TMI 509 - AT - Central Excise

Recovery of the dues - attachment - dismissal of appeal on the ground that the appellants have not appealed against notice issued by the Bangalore Commissionerate - Held that - once the demand of duty is confirmed, there is a statutory provision for recovery of interest on the confirmed demand in terms of Section 11AA/ 11AB then interest is unavoidably payable. Even for recovery of interest, no SCN is required As the statutory provisions mandate for payment of interest. The interest is piggyback of the duty demand, it goes hand in hand. Therefore, for the purpose of demand of interest no separate proceedings are required - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal dismissal by Commissioner (Appeals) for recovery of dues and interest, communication letters from Bangalore Commissionerate through Mumbai Commissionerate, challenge of interest demand, statutory provisions for interest recovery, relevance of Section 142 of Customs Act, 1962, applicability of CCE vs. Electrolux Kelvinator Ltd. 2010 (255) ELT 122 judgment.

Analysis:
The appeal in question was directed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), where the appellant's appeal was dismissed. The appellant had received letters from the Jt. Commissioner/Additional Commissioner, Central Excise Recovery, Mumbai I Commissionerate, regarding the recovery of dues from the Bangalore Commissionerate. These letters communicated the certificate issued under Section 142 for the recovery of confirmed demands, including interest. The appellant, dissatisfied with these letters, filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who dismissed it on the grounds that the appellant had not appealed against the notice issued by the Bangalore Commissionerate, leading to the appellant approaching the Tribunal.

During the proceedings, no representation was made on behalf of the appellant. The Asstt. Commissioner (AR) representing the revenue contended that the letters issued by the Mumbai Commissionerate were merely part of the recovery procedure for dues pending in the Bangalore Commissionerate and were not appealable. It was argued that the demand confirmation in Bangalore Commissionerate made the recovery inevitable, and the appellant had to pay the dues as per statutory provisions. The Tribunal carefully considered these submissions and reviewed the records.

The Tribunal noted that the demand for excise duty in the Bangalore Commissionerate had been confirmed and upheld, leading to the issuance of a recovery certificate under Rule 3 of Customs (Attachment of property of defaulters for Recovery of Govt. Dues) Rules, 1995. The challenged letters were viewed as communications of actions taken by the Bangalore Commissionerate through the Mumbai Commissionerate. The Tribunal emphasized that once a demand is confirmed, the appellant is obligated to pay the dues, and the only recourse is to comply with the confirmed demand. Regarding the disputed interest demand, the Tribunal highlighted the statutory provision for interest recovery on confirmed demands, stating that interest payment is mandatory alongside the duty demand.

Referring to the case of CCE vs. Electrolux Kelvinator Ltd. 2010 (255) ELT 122, the Tribunal underscored that recovery procedures under Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962 become enforceable once the demand is confirmed, making the recovery with interest unchallengeable. The Tribunal concluded that the appeal was not sustainable based on the precedent cited and upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) decision on interest notice appealability, following the identical facts presented in the referenced case.

In the final pronouncement on 16/02/2017, the Tribunal provided a detailed analysis and upheld the dismissal of the appeal based on the legal principles and precedents discussed during the proceedings.