9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 1, however, stipulates that where the duty determined to be payable is reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal or, as the case may be, the court, the date of such determination shall be the date on which an amount of duty is first determined to be payable. If that be so, proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11AA of the Act of 1944 on its application shows that the petitioner failed to pay duty within three months from the date of determination by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal passed on 22-5-1998. The petitioner was, therefore, under an obligation to pay the amount of duty within a period of three months thereof. However, the petitioner admittedly paid the remaining amount of duty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 to 517 of dated 1-10-1991 as also confirming a duty demand of ₹ 1,37,846.62 and ₹ 6,80,207.47 on 218.720 MT of CTD bars/channels/flats and angles and 1504.765 MT of CTD bars/rounds/angles and 96.240 MT of M.S. Flats, said to be cleared by the petitioner without issue of gate pass without payment of duty. In addition, confiscation also took place and penalty was also imposed. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, registered as Appeal No. E/1730 of 1992. The appeal of the petitioner was finally decided vide order dated 22-5-1998 (Annexure P-1) [1998 (104) E.L.T. 674 (Tri.-Del.)]. By this order, the total duty payment was redu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 12-12-1991. Out of total amount of ₹ 8,18,054.09, the petitioner had paid only ₹ 5,50,000/- on 28-6-1993 and the balance amount of ₹ 2,68,054.09 was paid as late as on 24-10-1998. Therefore, the delay occurred in paying the balance amount for a period of more than five years. He further submits that the petitioner is not entitled to benefit of Explanation-1 because as far as duty demand of ₹ 1,37,846.62 and ₹ 6,80,207.47 is concerned, that was confirmed by the Tribunal. In respect of another demand of ₹ 43,909/-, relief was granted to the petitioner. Therefore, the said explanation would not come to the aid of the petitioner. Second submission of learned counsel for respondent No. 1 is that in view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal or, as the case may be, the court, the date of such determination shall be the date on which an amount of duty is first determined to be payable. Explanation 2. - Where the duty determined to be payable is increased or further increased by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal or, as the case may be, the court, the date of such determination shall be,- (a) for the amount of duty first determined to be payable, the date on which the duty is so determined; (b) for the amount of increased duty, the date of order by which the increased amount of duty is first determined to be payable; (c) for the amount of further increase of duty, the date of ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 43,909/- as indicated in Para 4 of the appellate order. Therefore, in the present case, provisions contained in Explanation 1 would be attracted, according to which, the date of such determination shall be the date on which amount of duty is first determined to be payable. The legislative intention is clear that in cases, where payment of duty is subjected to challenge before appellate authorities or the Court, resulting in reduction of duty by taking recourse to the remedy of appeal before the appellate authorities or the Tribunal or the Court as the case may be, as a result of which, duty is reduced, the date of such final determination shall have to be reckoned for the purposes of imposing interest. Though learned counsel for the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner failed to pay duty within three months from the date of determination by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal passed on 22-5-1998. The petitioner was, therefore, under an obligation to pay the amount of duty within a period of three months thereof. However, the petitioner admittedly paid the remaining amount of duty only on 24-10-1998 whereas period of three months expired on 22-8-1998. Thus, there was a delay in payment of duty by a period of a little less than two months. For this period i.e. from 22-8-1998 to 24-10-1998, the petitioner is liable to make payment of interest on delayed payment of duty as required under Section 11AA of the Act of 1944. 11. In the result, the impugned demand notice dated 22-12-2003 (Annexure P-12) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
