9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise Rules, 2002, amounting to Rs. 3,66,360/-. Against this demand, the party preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the latter rejected the appeal, for which the following reasons were stated :- (a) The intimation sent by the Range Officer vide letter O.C. No. 909/2004 dated 4-9-2004 is not an appealable order; and (b) The relief sought for by the appellants with respect to applicability of the amended provisions for determination of interest amount is premature. 2. In the present appeal filed against the decision of the appellate Commissioner, reliance has been placed on the Tribunal s decision Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2001 (129) E.L.T. 780 (Tri. - Del.), wherein a commu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intimation to this office. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (K. NATARAJAN) SUPERINTENDENT Learned counsel submitted that sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 had been partly struck down by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Lucid Colloids Ltd. v. Union of India - 2006 (200) E.L.T. 377 (Raj.) and therefore the proposal to levy interest from the appellants in terms of the said sub-rule was liable to be set aside. Learned counsel also relied on judicial authorities with regard to appealable nature of the Superintendent s communications. The following decisions were cited :- (a) Hyderabad Industries Ltd.v. Commissioner - 2002 (145) E.L.T. 463 (Tri. Del.), wherein a Superintendent s letter requesting the assessee to pay duty short-levied without fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h has not been paid by date: Provided further that..... It was in terms of the First proviso to the sub-rule that the Superintendent, in his letter dated 4-9-2004, demanded interest from the appellants. In his recent letter [O.C. No. 476/07 dated 3-4-07] addressed to the appellants, the Superintendent says that the amount of interest demanded in his first letter had been worked out @ 13% as per Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act and not @ 2% per month or Rs. 1,000/- per day. The fact remains that the assessee was not put to notice of the proposal for levy of interest from 1-4-2003 as quantified in the Superintendent s letter dated 4-9-2004. It is explicit from the said letter that the amount of interest [Rs. 3,66,360/-] was quantif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
