9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... way of interest on the demand of central excise duty of Rs.75,16,661/-. We may point out that by virtue of an order-in-original dated 06.04.2000, a sum of Rs.1,23,00,006/- was demanded by way of duty short paid. When the petitioner went in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the said amount of duty was reduced to Rs.75,16,661/- by his order dated 12.09.2001. It is relevant to mentioned that neither in the order-in-original nor in the appellate order was there any direction for payment of interest. 2. It is also the case of the petitioner that as the petitioner desired to close the matter, it had agreed to pay the amount of Rs.75,16,661/- and it was under an understanding that the matter would be treated as closed and no furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the challan dated 23.10.2001. The matter rested there and it is only after a lapse of over three years that the first letter, raising the demand of Rs.24,05,332/-, was received by the petitioner which was also purportedly towards differential duty. However, as the petitioner had explained that the entire duty amount had been paid, the department issued the said letter dated 19.10.2005, demanding interest of Rs.24,05,332/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the demand for interest, even if the starting point is taken as the date of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), that is, 12.09.2001, is highly belated inasmuch as the first demand for interest was made on 19.10.2005. 4. The learned counsel for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tc., which is not the case here. As such, in the present case, the period of limitation for the demand for duty would be one year. By the same logic, the period of limitation for demand of interest thereon would be one year. Inasmuch as the demand for interest has been made beyond a period of one year, the demand would be clearly hit by the principle of limitation as laid down by the Supreme Court. Even if, we take the letter dated 25.10.2004 as the first demand of interest, although that letter was in respect of a demand for differential duty, the demand would still be beyond a period of three years. 6. In view of the fact that we have taken a decision, as indicated above, we are not examining the other point raised by the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
