9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 11DD only which came into effect from 14.05.2003 - Interest would be demandable only for the period from 14.05.2003 under Section 11DD and for the period prior to 14.05.2003 the interest would not be chargeable. Limitation – Held that:- As held by coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Insecticides [2012 (286) E.L.T. 208 (Tri. - Del.)] the interest being by automatic operation of law, the limitation period prescribed would not be applicable . - E/4010/2010-SM(BR) - 55765/2013 - Dated:- 8-3-2013 - Rakesh Kumar, J. For the Appellants : Ms Tuhina and Neha Gulati, Advs. For the Respondent : Ms Shweta Bector, DR. Per: Rakesh Kumar: The fact leading to this appeal in brief are as under: 1.1 According t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferential duty would be chargeable under Section 11AB. The Additional Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 22.10.2009 confirmed the interest demand of Rs. 2,32,977/-. On appeal to Commissioner (Appeals), this order of the Additional Commissioner was upheld vide order-in-appeal dated 29.09.2010. Both the Additional Commissioner in the order-in-original and Commissioner (Appeals) in the order-in-appeal have observed that the amount of differential duty mentioned above i.e. Rs. 7,82,728/- for April 2001 to September 2001 period and Rs. 15,59,574/- for December 2003 to February 2004 has been paid by the appellant under supplementary invoices on account of increase of prices with retrospective effect and, therefore, in view of Apex Court's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty Rs. 7,82,728/- for April 2001 to September 2001 and Rs. 15,59,574/- for December 2003 to February 2004, which were paid to the Government on 24.03.2003 and 05.03.2004 respectively under the provision of Section 11D; that the provisions regarding charging of interest for the period of delay in payment to the Government of an amount charged by a manufacturer from his customers towards duty, came into effect w.e.f. 14.05.2003 by introduction of Section 11DD; that during period prior to 14.05.2003, there was no provision for charging interest on the amount payable under Section 11D; that the entire demand of interest, in any case, is time barred, as show cause notice has been issued long after the expiry of normal limitation period of one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of dispute was selling duty paid petroleum products received from IOC terminal at Bijwasan and it is the IOC terminal at Biswasan which was discharging the duty liability. According to the appellant since by the time the duty paid petroleum products were sold to the customers by the Appellant the prices for the same had been revised upward, the appellant had recovered higher amount towards duty from the customers than the amount of duty which originally was paid by IOC (Bijwasan) and that it is this differential amount which has been paid under Section 11D and for charging interest on the amount payable under Section 11D, specific provision was introduced w.e.f. 14.05.2003 by inserting Section 11DD. However, on the other hand the facts na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
