9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e PLA - in this case, when the interest was for late payment of duty, there would not be any question of unjust enactment - In view Bock India P. Ltd. vs. CCE, Vadodara (2009 -TMI - 203462 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD), appeal is allowed - 2923 of 2009 (SM) - 316/2011-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 3-5-2011 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, J. Mr. Anil Khanna, Authorized Representative (SDR) for the respondent. Mr. Suresh Agarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Per Rakesh Kumar :- The Appellant are engaged in the manufacturing of electric motor, electric fans and PD pumps. The excisable duty amount of Rs.9,65,000/- payable for the period from April, 2003 to July 2003 was late due to financial problems. Show Cause Notice were issued to the them for r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner issued show cause notice dated 24.12.07 for recovery of this amount along with interest and imposition of penalty. The Assistant Commissioner vide Order-In-Original dated 29/12/08 disallowed the self-credit of Rs.2,46,755/- and directed them to deposit this amount through TR-6 Challan and also ordered the interest on this amount and imposed penalty of equal amount under section 11AC. On appeal to Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) made Order-In-Original dated 15.09.09 upheld the Order-In-Original in toto and dismissed the appeal. Against this order, the present appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri Suresh Agrawal, Advocate, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that on account of final ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pply for the refund of interest also, in view of the judgement of Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of BDH Industries Ltd. (supra) and that there is no impunity in the impugned order. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions from the Departmental Representative and perused the records. 6. The dispute in this case is about refund of excess interest. During the pendency of the appeal, the interest on late payment of duty had been paid the rate specified under Rule 8(3) of Central Excise Rules 2002, i.e., Rs.1000 per day or 2% per month whichever is higher and on this basis, the total interest for late payment of duty paid by them was Rs.6,55,519/-. Subsequently when their appeal was decided by the Tribunal vide final orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
