9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be six months or five years depending upon whether there has been any suppression of facts etc. with the fraudulent intention or not - under Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 period of limitation prescribed for recovery of duty is six months or five years as above and also the period for claim of refund is also six months. The position being similar we hold that the same logic should apply in respect of the recovery to be made under the Customs Act where no period of limitation has been prescribed. It is only reasonable that the period of limitation that applies to a claim for the principal amount should also apply to the claim in the appeals - demand for interest was required to be issued within a period of 06 months under Section 28 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tant) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that even if no period of demand for interest is specified in Section 61 of the Customs Act, 1962 still it was required to be issued within a period of 06 months as per Madras CESTAT judgment in the case of C.C., Madras vs. TVS Whirlpool Ltd. [1996 (86) E.L.T. 144 (Tribunal)]. 3. Shri J. Nair (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that no time limit for demand of interest is applicable and accordingly defended the orders passed by the adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue raised by both sides is whether a demand for interest in the present case was required to be issued within a period of 06 m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferred to supra the appeals themselves are also taken up for disposal with the consent of the both sides. The only plea of the Revenue is that in the absence of any period of limitation provided under Section 61(3), the general period, of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act should be made applicable. We are unable to accept this plea of the Ld. D.R. in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of G.O.I. v. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals (supra). The Hon ble Supreme Court in para 6 has held is reproduced below : Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents urged that Rule 12 is unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it does not provide for any period of limitation for the recovery of du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fferent sections and rules reasonable period limitation would be six months or five years depending upon whether there has been any suppression of facts etc. with the fraudulent intention or not. We observe as pointed out before us that the scheme of the Central Excises and Salt Act so far as the recovery of duty etc. is concerned is similar to that under the Customs Act, 1962. Here also we observe under Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 period of limitation prescribed for recovery of duty is six months or five years as above and also the period for claim of refund is also six months. The position being similar we hold that the same logic should apply in respect of the recovery to be made under the Customs Act where no period of limitation ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
