9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid within 15 days from the date of re-quantification - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/248/2007 - 564/2007 - Dated:- 10-5-2007 - S/Shri P.G. Chacko, P. Karthikeyan, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri N. Viswanathan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri V. Seshagiri Rao, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. After examining the records and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,950/- as per Order-in-Original No. 13/2005 dt. 20-9-2005. Ld. Commissioner further appropriated certain earlier payments made by the assessee, towards this fresh demand of duty. Subsequently, the appellants received a letter dated 30-9-2005 of the jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner, wherein an amount of Rs. 19,56,766/- was demanded as interest on the duty amount of Rs. 42,49,950/- for the period f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Central Excise Act on 20-9-2005 only and, therefore, any levy of interest should be with reference to the said order under Section 11AA of the Act. As the entire amount of duty was paid within 15 days from the date of determination of duty, there was no liability to pay any interest under Section 11AA ibid. On the other hand, it is ld. SDR s submission that the duty amount of Rs. 42,49,950/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal, this is virtually a case of reduction of duty by the Tribunal and, therefore, the assessee should be held liable to pay interest on the reduced amount of duty in terms of the above Explanation. We have to reject this argument at once, inasmuch as it is at loggerheads with what learned SDR submitted at the outset. As rightly submitted by ld. Counsel, the date of determination of duty of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
