9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit for Rs. 98,655/- vide RG 23 Pt. IIE No. 122, dated 4-8-1990 on the input, viz. evaporation boats on the strength of bill of entry No. 006619, dated 18-7-1990 under Rule 57 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The department alleged that this credit was not admissible to the appellant. The show because notice was issued on 5-2-1991 demanding duty and the same has been confirmed vide order-in-original No. 50/1991, dated 8-4-1991. Since the appellant did not dispute the payment of duty, they have not chosen to file an appeal but paid the confirmed duty demand lately on 18-10-2002. Thereafter the department has been addressing letters to pay the interest amount of Rs. 1,20,606/- under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the delayed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore, 2004 (170) E.L.T. 196 (Tri.-Chennai). The text of the judgments shows that the interest is not demandable as the payment of duty relates to the period prior to the introduction of interest clause. It appears that the department did not agree with the said proposition and persisted upon the payment of interest amount. At last it culminated into attachment of the goods of the appellant in the factory premises by conducting a panchnama and taking coercive steps by putting the goods into auction and realizing the sale proceeds towards interest amount. 2. The appellants choose to challenge the attachment proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals) but it has been dismissed on the ground that the same i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inciple that in such circumstances the interest is not leviable and that touches the root of the case, the assessee cannot be made to stand helpless without challenging the proceedings before the appropriate authorities or the Tribunal concerned as the matter arises under the Central Excise Law. Lastly he also relied upon the Rule 41 of the CEGAT Procedure Rules, 1982. 5. Having considered the submissions made by both sides and appreciating the contentions, I am of the view that there exists prima facie case in favour of the appellants in staying the impugned order from its operation. If the impugned order is not stayed it is certain that the authorities below would proceed to auction the goods under seizure and appropriate the sale proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
