9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er with regard to charging of simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum and filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.7405 of 2006 - Held that:- immunity granted - interest waived. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven full waiver in respect of interest, whereas, the petitioner alone was not given the benefit. 3. Mr.S.Thimmavalavan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that as per Section 32K of the Central Excise Act, the discretion is vested with the Commission and that has been rightly exercised by the Commission by passing the impugned order by reducing the interest from 10% p.a. to 9% p.a. and the same cannot be interfered by this Court. He relied upon a Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd. reported in (2011) 4 SCC 635 and a Division Bench Judgment of Gujarath High Court in Gujarat Cypromet Ltd. reported in 2010 (254) E.L.T.455, and submitted that the order has to be read as a who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unity are not relevant ground under Section 32K of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commission cannot mechanically interpret the Section and it should be interpreted based on the circumstances pleaded. It is not denied by the Commission that there was no Tsunami or there was no ban imposed by the State Government on sale and manufacture of chewing tobacco. When two material grounds which cannot be denied by the Commission are made out by the petitioner-Company, the Commission should have taken into consideration of the said facts and ought to have granted immunity from the payment of interest. The Legislature/Parliament would not have perceived the eventuality like Tsunami and the ban of tobacco by the State Government. When those grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 44, was exercised without properly appreciating the prevailing circumstances under which the petitioner was placed. Therefore, the judgment fully supports the petitioner's case.
8.One another factor is that the similarly placed persons were already given total immunity from payment of entire interest, as in the case IN RE: K.B.STEELS reported in 2003 (159) E.L.T. 1090 (Sett. Comm) and IN RE: LUMAX SAMLIP INDUSTRIES LTD. reported in 2007 (220) E.L.T.669 (Sett.Comm.) Therefore, following the same also, the petitioner is entitled to the relief.
9.Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside and the petitioner is granted fully immunity as prayed for. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
