9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R. Aravindan and A. Saravanan, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notice, dated 18-10-2004 and 5-10-2005, demanding interest on delayed payment of duty assessed under the Central Excise Act. 2. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 1-2-2006 attaching the property for recovery of the demanded amount. 3. The impugned order reads as under : 1. Shri M. Sahul Hamee, S/o. Md. Sheik Dawood, (Partner M/s. Poly Tex Industries) 3/47, North Main Road, Krishnapattinam Gentleman, Sub : Arrears of Revenue of 590859/- Initiation of action under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Sections 11-A and 11-B was enforced vide Finance (No. 2) Bill of 1996, whereas, the assessment in the case of the petitioner was completed on 22-7-1994. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the adjudicated amount stood paid, before the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 1996. 6. In support of his contention, that the impugned notices and order are without jurisdiction, as the provisions of Section 11-A and 11-B of the Act has no retrospective effect, placed reliance on the judgment of the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. CEGAT, Chennai reported in 2005 (183) E.L.T. 343, wherein, the Honourable Division Bench of this Court laid down, as under : REPRESENTED BY : Shri K. Veera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been raised after coming into force of Section 11-A and 11-B of the Central Excise Act therefore, it cannot be said to be bad. 8. On consideration, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once the assessment was completed on 22-7-1994, the provision brought in force by the Act, 1996 will have no application to already adjudicated assessments. 9. The quantum raised in this petition is covered, by decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore (supra). 10. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 contends that as the petitioner has already paid part of the amount therefore is estopped to challenge the impugned orders. 11. This contention of the learned counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
