9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of duty. This findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not been challenged by the revenue. In this premises, it is not difficult to infer that there has been no suppression, misdeclaration etc. by the appellant. Consequently the show cause notice issued for recovery of interest issued after three years, was barred by limitation in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. case (2013 (8) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT ). - Decided in favour of assessee - Appeal No. E/269/12 - Order No. FO/A/75085/2016 - Dated:- 1-1-2016 - DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For the Petitioner : Sri Harakamal Chakraborty, G.M. (F A) For the Respondent : Sri S.S.Chatterjee, Supdt.(AR) ORDE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the credit. It is his contention that the demand for interest in absence of suppression of fact, misdeclaration etc. is barred by limitation in view of the judgement of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. -vs.- Commissioner of Central Excise, LTU 2013(297) E.L.T. 332(Del.). 5. Ld. AR for the department reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. Undisputedly, the appellant had reversed the cenvat credit, before issuance of the demand notice. Also, it is not in dispute that demand notice was issued three years after reversal of the credit. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the penalty imposed under section 11AC of CEA, 1944 by the adjudicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es Private Limited (supra) and Gujarat High Court in Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Company Limited (supra). These judgments have relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court approving the view of the Tribunal in TVS Whirlpool Limited (supra) wherein pari materia provisions of the Customs Act were considered. This being a distinguishing feature, we feel that the appellant is entitled to succeed in the present appeals. The question of law is accordingly answered in affirmative, i.e., in favour of the appellant and against the respondent-Revenue. 7. In view of the aforesaid principle, I do not see merit in the observation of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that interest under section 11AB of the CEA, 1944 is recoverable from the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
