9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2005 demanding interest amount of Rs. 71,457/- under Section 11A read with Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and also proposing for penalty. The adjudicating authority vide his order dt. 29.7.2005 confirmed the demand of interest and also imposed penalty of Rs. 7150/- under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved by this, appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned OIA dt. 22.9.2006 rejected the appeal and upheld the OIO. Hence the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide interim order No.137/07 dt.8.2.2007 ordered predeposit of Rs. 5000/- towards penalty and the same was complied by the appellant. 3. The Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into effect from 1.3.2002 which is independent of Section 11AB. The said provision was substituted by Notification No.12/2003-CE (NT) dt. 1.3.2003 w.e.f. 1.4.2003 wherein the penal interest has been demanded along with outstanding amount at the rate of 2% per month or Rs. 1000/- per day whichever is higher. 4.1. This provision was further amended by Notification No.17/2005-CE (NT) dt. 31.3.2005 w.e.f. 1.4.2005 and it was further revised and the interest payable at the rate specified by the Central Government vide Notification under Section 11AB of the Act. 4.2 Ld. AR relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and the Tribunal's decisions as under:- (1) Luci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mendment, it is clearly seen that the government has restored the interest on delayed payment to the original provision introduced w.e.f. 1.3.2002. Ld. AR also submitted that as per Section 11AB, interest works out to 13% per annum whereas as per Rule 8(3), interest works out to 24% per annum which should be reckoned in this case. 6. I find that the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Elastolan Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has dealt with the similar issue and held that assessees are not liable to pay interest in excess of the amount notified under Section 11AB for the delayed period of payment of duty. This Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kanagadurga Clothers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), taking into consideration the ratio laid down i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
