9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... along with interest of Rs. 1,30,866/- raised under the two show cause notices dated 27-8-2002 and 24-9-1998 and directing interest to be paid at the rate of 18% on the delayed payments of duty under Rule 96ZP. 2. The appellant was holding a licence for manufacture of hot rolled products of non-alloy steel falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. With the coming into force of the provisions of Section 3A of the Act and the rules made thereunder, the appellant had opted to avail the compounded levy scheme as described in sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, for full and final discharge of Central Excise duty liability for the manufacturing of hot re-rolled products of non-alloy steel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... determined by the Commissioner, it had wilfully contravened the provisions and evaded the payment of duty and therefore, the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) could rightly be invoked. It was held that the capacity determination was not in dispute and, therefore, the appellant was required to discharge the duty liability as per the capacity determination order. He also relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench in Mohinder Steels Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh reported in 2002 (145) E.L.T. 290 (Tri. - LB), in which it was held that no show cause notice was required to be issued where the final capacity has been determined by the competent authority. The adjudicating authority confirmed the amount of o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant and in response thereto he submitted that the extended period was rightly invoked and the show cause notices were, therefore, within limitation. In the alternative, he submitted that the issue was settled by the decision of the Larger Bench Mohinder Steels Ltd. (supra) as per which no show cause notice was required to be issued when final capacity was re-determined by the competent authority and the party was required to discharge the duty as per that order. 6. The main contention raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) was that interest could not be charged till the issuance of the final order dated 7-4-2004. This submission is fallacious, because the liability did not come into existence by virtue of the order, but the order only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period from the 1st day of September, 1997 or 10th of the month, as the case may be, till the date of actual payment of the whole of the outstanding amount. Since the rate of 18% is prescribed under this statutory rule, there is no option with the authority to charge any lesser interest. The liability to pay interest at the rate of 18% on the delayed payments is a mandatory liability, as is clear from the expression he shall be liable to pay , occurring in the said proviso. The Commissioner has, therefore, rightly rejected the contentions of the appellant contesting the demand of interest. 8. It appears from the appellate order that no contention regarding limitation was raised. However, in the present appeal memo, such a contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
