9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 964X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s against the order passed by the adjudicating authority has been dismissed. The Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh, by his order, dated 19th March, 2004 had confirmed the demand of interest amounting to ₹ 1,11,01,660/- against the appellants under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. The facts in brief as revealed from the records are that, the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Malted Food Horlicks Boost classifiable under Chapter 19 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants used to transfer the goods in bulk to their various depots located at different regions in the country for the purpose of re-packing in saleable packs. The goods were cleared provisionally in terms of the provisions of law co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e from the appellants on account of late payment of duty should not be recovered under Section 11AA of the said Act. The appellants sought to contest the said show cause notice without success as the adjudicating authority under order, dated 19-3-2004 confirmed the demand of said interest against the appellants. The appeal against the same did not yield fruitful result and hence the present appeal. 5. Upon hearing the learned advocate for the appellants and the learned DR for the respondent and taking note of the decision of the Apex Court sought to be relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellants in the matter of Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Mumbai v. I.T.C. Ltd., reported in 2006 (203) E.L.T. 532 (S.C.), it is see ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t proceeding as contemplated under the Rules. 23. On a plain reading of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, we have no doubt in our mind that the Tribunal was correct in its finding that the impugned show cause notices were illegal. 7. Once it is apparent from the records that finalization of assessment in relation to the appellants case for the relevant period, which includes the period in respect of which the interest is claimed, is pending, it obviously means that the quantification of principal liability of the appellants is yet to be finalized. It is not the case of the Department that the appellants had failed to pay the duty in terms of the provisional assessment. The contention of the Department is tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Apex Court in I.T.C. Ltd. s case (supra) and the facts of the case in hand, as disclosed above, we are of the considered opinion that, in view of the fact that the proceedings regarding finalization of assessment are still pending before the adjudicating authority, it would be in the fitness of the case to finalize the quantification of the interest, if any, payable by the appellants along with the finalization of the assessment. 11. In this view of the matter, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. The issue regarding the liability of interest, if any, as well as the quantification thereof are kept open to be decided along with the finalization of the assessment for the relevant period. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
