9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Petitioner : Shri Govind Dixit, DR For the Rspondent : Shri A Upadhyay, Representative ORDER PER: SULEKHA BEEVI CS: The above is filed by Revenue challenging the impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) which set aside the demand of interest. 2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of refined edible soya bean oil. They were clearing the goods on payment of duty vide N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner (Appeals) though confirmed the duty liability held that respondents are not liable to pay interest. The Revenue has filed this appeal challenging the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that respondents are not liable to pay interest. 3. It is the case of the Revenue that Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 15 of CETA, 1985 was inserted on 28.02.2005 giving retrospective effect from 1.3.2003. The ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Chapter 15 of CETA, 1985 vide Financial Bill, 2005. The Chapter Note inserted is as under:- "87(1) In the first Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, in Chapter 15, after Note 4, the following Note shall be inserted and shall be deemed to have been inserted for the period commencing on and from the 1st day of March, 1986 and ending with the 28th day of February,2005 (both days inclusive) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arises only when the amount becomes due. The amount falls due only after the insertion of the amendment. The respondents discharged their liability within the time limit. Though the product is made dutiable w.e.f. 1.3.2003, there was no liability to pay duty on that date, as the amendment occurred only on 28.02.2005. In our considered opinion, in the present case, there is no liability to pay inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
