9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeals) is annulling the order, demand of duty is non-existent. Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of LUCAS TVS Ltd. (2009 (12) TMI 828 - CESTAT CHENNAI) rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue on the same issue following the decision of Blue Star Ltd. (2009 (10) TMI 257 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT). In that case, the demands were set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 20.06.1995. The Tribunal by order dated 24.01.1997 set aside the Order-in-Appeal and remanded the matter to Commissioner (Appeals). The demand was reconfirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 26.12.2000 - Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand by Order-in-Appeal dated 12.05.1998. The Tribunal by final order dated 30 th May, 2003 redetermined the demand and modified the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Appellants are liable to pay interest, if any, after three months from the date of the Tribunal's final order dated 30.05.2003 in terms of Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Decided in favor of assessee. - E/769 to 771/2005-SM - Final Order Nos. 40313-40315/2014 - Dated:- 10-3-2014 - P K Das, J. For the Appellant : Mr S S Thakur, Vice-President ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the three refund claims filed by the appellant. The appellant filed three appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the said orders. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the orders and the appellant filed these appeals before the Tribunal. It has been held that the computation of interest will commence after three months from the date of determination of duty under Section 11A(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 as per order of Adjudicating authority. 4. The learned Representative on behalf of the appellant submits that Commissioner (Appeals) by Order-in-Appeal, dated 12.05.1998 set aside the adjudication order and therefore, the adjudication orders dated 18.07.1995 and 26.12.1996 are non-est. The Tribunal by Final Order dated 30.05.2003 modified the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and confirmed the demand of duty. So, the demand of interest would arise after three months from the date of Final Order of the Tribunal. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Blue Star India Ltd. Vs Union of India reported in 2010 (250) E.L.T.179 (Bom.). He also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt case. In that case, the Tribunal remanded the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for re-determination of duty. In the present case, the Tribunal had not redetermined the demand of duty as claimed by the appellant. 6.0 After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, I find the dispute relates to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, demand of interest under Section 11AA of the Act, 1944 would be commenced after the three months from Order-in-Original dated 18.07.1996 and 26.12.1996 or after three months from Tribunal Final Order, dated 30.05.2003. 6.1 It may be noted that in pursuance of Section 35A(3) of the Act, 1944, the Commissioner (Appeals) is empowered confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order of demand of duty as determined under Section 11A(2) of the Act, 1944. The word annal as per The Chambers Dictionary, 12th Edition means to make null, to reduce to nothing, to abolish . The word null as per Dictionary means of no legal force, void, invalid, having no significance, amounting to nothing, non-existent. In case, the Commissioner (Appeals) is modifying the demand of duty as determined, the interest is payable as per Explanati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same is payable as reported to have been paid by them and they have also taken MODVAT credit. The impugned order is, therefore, modified in the above terms. (Emphasis supplied) 6.3 It is seen that the Tribunal by final order dated 30.05.2003 confirmed the additional duty of excise and modified the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Explanation 1 of Section 11AA of the said Act provides that where the duty demand to be payable is reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal or as the case may be, the court, the date of such determination shall be date on which the amount of duty is first determined to be payable. In the present case, the adjudicating authority determined the duty by Order-in-Original dated 18.07.1996 and 26.12.1996. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the said adjudication order. So both the adjudication orders are no more in the eye of law. The Tribunal by final order dated 30.05.2003 confirmed the demand on the intermediate product, namely, Grey Tyre Cord Fabric, which is captively consumed and to that extent modified the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby, the demand of duty was set aside. 6.4 The Divis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
