9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f M/s Jai Bharat Maruti Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III [2013 (10) TMI 355 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that period of one year would apply to the present case. - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied by it by recalling its order and by adopting/following the earlier decision of coordinate bench on the same issue in Emco Limited v. CCE, Mumbai - 2011-TIOL-1585-CESTAT-MUM = 2011 (272) E.L.T. 136 (Tri. - Mum.)? (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there is no time limit nor any show cause notice required for levy and recovery of interest under Section 11AB against the assessee? (v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought not to have taken into account the fact that there was no provisional assessment and the final determination of price and assessable value and payment of duty thereon had already taken place and the question of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conduct and the fact that extended period under the proviso to Section 11A and penalty under Section 11AC are based on same pre-requisites none of which is attracted in the present case, as rightly accepted by the lower authorities for not levying any penalty? (ix) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not following the decisions of courts and Tribunals placed before it on the question of extended period of limitation not being invokable for levy of duty or interest and thereby passing the impugned order to make out a new case against the assessee which the revenue did not and for this reason also, the impugned order is liable to be vacated? (x) Whether on the facts and in the circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er automobile manufacturers. The question is whether the liability to pay interest on differential excise duty already paid at the time of issue of supplementary invoices would continue and if so can such interest liability be demanded beyond the normal period of limitation of one year from the date of supplementary invoice under Section 11A read with Section 11AB of the Act. It was issued seven different show cause notices for different periods and the demand of interest was raised in some cases within the normal period of one year which the assessee accepted and paid under protest while in other cases where extended period of limitation had been invoked to raise the demand for interest, the assessee agitated the same in appeal before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g upon judgments in Kwality Ice Cream Company and Another v. Union of India and others [(2012) 281 E.L.T. 507] and Commissioner v. TVS Whirlpool Limited [2000 (119) E.L.T. A177 (SC)] and holding that as the period of limitation that applies to recovery of the principal amount shall also apply to the claim for interest thereon, the demand is time barred. The opinion recorded by the Delhi High Court in Kwality Ice Cream Company and Another v. Union of India and others (supra) was followed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate v. VKN Industries Private Limited (CEA No. 67/2011 (O&M), decided on 17-4-2012), by holding as follows :- "6. There is no dispute that assessee has paid the differenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
