9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should also be within a period of one year as stipulated under Section 11-A of the Act - Therefore, department has absolutely no jurisdiction to issue show cause notice after expiry of the period of limitation for interest on the delayed payment for the period - period of limitation, unless otherwise stipulated by the statute, which applies to a claim for the principal amount should also apply to the claim for interest thereon - Decided in favour of assessee. - CEA No.8 of 2011 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 31-1-2014 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MS. ANITA CHAUDHRY, JJ. Mr. Sandeep Goyal for the Appellant Mr. Sukhdev Sharma for the Respondent ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. CM No.25339 CII of 2013 1. This is an applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal ought not to have called for the original records of proceedings before the respondent which resulted in the order in original having been passed erroneously and mechanically in haste without proper consideration fairly and objectively of the factual and legal submissions made by the appellant and binding decisions of courts and Tribunals placed before him and ought not to have vacated the impugned order in original? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the incorrect and improper order of so called adjudication which could not have been passed on 24.8.2009 when the personal hearing also was only on the same evening at about 5.00 pm that too for a few minutes when nothing was heard, explained or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that where the divergent views existing earlier from courts and Tribunals stand resolved by the Supreme Court subsequently, for the period prior to the decision of the Supreme Court, the assessee cannot be found at fault by alleging wilful misstatement of facts by the assessee especially when the assessee has followed the binding decisions of the Tribunal as well as the High Courts which were available before the decision of the Supreme court came to be pronounced? (vii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal being a final fact finding body at the appellate stage could not have functioned as original authority to give its own findings of fact without records and documents of the revenue placed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant was served with a show cause notice-cum-demand notice dated 4.3.2008 by the respondent based on the audit objection of Internal Revenue Audit whereby interest was sought to be charged for the clearances made earlier and for which duty was paid between 14.6.2006 to 20.8.2007. The appellant filed reply to the said notice vide letter dated 27.3.2008, Annexure A.8. Personal hearing was also given to the appellant by the Commissioner on 24.8.2009. Vide order of even date i.e. 24.8.2009, Annexure A.10, the Commissioner confirmed the demand of interest of Rs. 6,58,621/- leviable on the differential duty of Rs. 55,28,780/-under Section 11AB read with section 11A of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal. Vid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ential duty on supplementary invoices regularly and has shown the same in the ER-I returns, which were filed regularly before the department, therefore, issuance of show cause notice for interest on the delayed payment should also be within a period of one year as stipulated under Section 11-A of the Act. Therefore, department has absolutely no jurisdiction to issue show cause notice after expiry of the period of limitation for interest on the delayed payment for the period from 2002-03 to 2005-06. Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Kwality Ice Cream Company v. Union of India W.P.(c) 14414-15/2006 decided on 18.1.2012 has also held that period of limitation, unless otherwise stipulated by the statute, which applies to a claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
