Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (8) TMI 716

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l Excise Act, 1944, was liable to pay the interest also - the appellant was not a person who was chargeable to duty cannot be saddled with the duty liability under any provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Accordingly, the question of payment of interest by the appellant may not arise. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, VADODARA-II Versus M/s GUJARAT NARMADA FERTILIZERS CO LTD [2012 (4) TMI 309 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - The section would be applicable to the person who was chargeable with the duty - as had already been recorded that the appellant was not chargeable to duty’ as the goods were cleared for export under CT-3 for which B-1 bond had been executed by merchant exporters - Both the lower authorities had held against the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division - IV, Ahmedabad on the ground that as per terms and conditions of Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001, it is the liability of the merchant exporter who had furnished B-1 bond to pay the duty and interest, in such cases of non-export and as such the interest paid by them was wrongly paid and is liable to be refunded. The adjudicating authority, after following the due process of law, rejected the refund claim. On an appeal, the first appellate authority also did not agree with the contentions raised by the appellant before him and relied upon the provisions of Section 11A(2B) of Central Excise Act, 1944, rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. Hence, this appeal. 4. Ld. Coun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... en executed by merchant exporters, for removal of excisable goods without payment of duty and would draw my attention to the specific clause which says that the obligors are liable to pay the duty and interest thereof, which in this case is merchant exporter. 5. Ld. D.R., on the other hand, would submit that the appellant having discharged the duty liability had held himself in the place of merchant exporters. It is his submission that having paid the duty liability, he is also liable to pay the interest, as the provisions of Section 11AB clearly indicates that the person who is liable to pay duty or has paid the duty, interest liability has also to be discharged by the same person. He would reiterate the findings of the first appellate a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... licable to the person who is chargeable with the duty; as has already been recorded by me in undisputed factual matrix, the appellant herein was not chargeable to duty as the goods were cleared for export under CT-3 for which B-1 bond has been executed by merchant exporters. It is also seen from the records that the appellant herein had debited in the bond transferred by merchant exporters the amount of duty on the goods, which were cleared for export. In my view, the appellant herein cannot be considered as a person who is chargeable to duty for non-export of the goods. The duty liability, if any, would arise on the merchant exporter by virtue of B-1 Bond executed by him with the departmental authorities. As has already been reproduced by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... short paid, duty would become time barred. If the manufacturer does not pay it voluntarily, it would not be possible for the Department to recover the same. But if he does it voluntarily despite completion of period of limitation, he would, further be saddled with the liability to pay statutory interest. Surely, this was not the intention of the Legislature while sub-section (2B) was introduced in Section 11A of the Act. 11. In view of the foregoing, I find that the impugned order is incorrect and liable to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. (Pronounced in Court on 21-9-2012) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates