9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12 (4) TMI 309 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ] - the demand of interest which is beyond the period of one year from the date of issuance of show-cause notice is unsustainable - As regards the demand of interest, within a period of one year from the date of issue of show-cause notice, such demand is upheld – Decided partly in favour of Assessee. - Appeal No. :E/1352/2007-SM - ORDER No. A/11394/2013 - Dated:- 18-10-2013 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, J. For the Appellant: Shri Saurav Dixit, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri Manoj Kutty, AR JUDGEMENT Per : Mr. M.V. Ravindaran; This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. Commr(A)/203/VDR-I/2007 dated 16.10.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Vadodara. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalties by the first appellate authority. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that they have not contested the issue of demand of differential duty for the only reason that they wanted to buy peace. It is his submission that since both the lower authorities have demanded and confirmed the amount of interest, they are contesting the issue on merits. It is his submission that the demand which has been raised is by invoking the extended period of limitation, which is incorrect in this case as there cannot be any intention to evade the duty as the clearance on which differential duty has been demanded, was to their own sister concern. It is his submission that sister unit would have availed CENVAT Credit of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any excise duty by undervaluing the goods merits consideration as there is no dispute that the appellant s sister concern has consumed the goods cleared by the appellant and has discharged Central Excise duty on the final products so manufactured. This being the case, there can be no intention to evade the duty, as any duty paid by the appellant would have resulted in CENVAT Credit to the appellant s sister concern. I find it is the appellant s contention that since no duty liability arises if they had contested the issue on merits, there cannot be any interest liability; as laid down by their Lordships in the case of Gujarat Narmada Co. Ltd. (supra). In my view, the said proposition is correct. I find that their Lordships in the case cited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notice which could have been validly issued and surely not a notice which had become time-barred. If by efflux of time and in absence of availability of extended period of limitation, such show cause notice itself had become time-barred, any payment made voluntarily by the manufacturer cannot be viewed as one made under sub-section (2B) of Section 11A of the Act. 12. In the present case, we have already held that time for issuing such a notice was one year, which period had already expired. 6. Respectfully following the ratio as laid down by the High Court, I find that the demand of interest which is beyond the period of one year from the date of issuance of show-cause notice is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
