9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 708X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Central Excise act, 1944 nor appellant has given any such undertaking. Inspite of that appellant deposited the entire disputed duty decided by Supreme Court within three months from the case was decided by Apex Court. Even if it is presumed that duty was determined under Section 11A(2), which is factually incorrect, still the revised duty determined by Supreme Court stands paid within three months of such determination as per the provisions of Section 11AA(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Explanation-I to this Section. In view of the above observations appeal filed by the appellant is required to be allowed. - Appeal No.EA-467/06 - Order No.FO/75168/2016 - Dated:- 15-2-2016 - DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) AND SHRI H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.3169-3173/1998 in Supreme Court against CESTAT s Order on 01.09.1998. That four years after the orders of CESTAT, revenue sanctioned refunds of ₹ 84,82,950/- to the appellant during the period 04.10.2002 to 07.10.2002. That by an order dt. 28.01.2004 Apex Court reversed the orders, passed by CESTAT in favour of the appellant and held that the benefit of Notification No.121/62-CE dt.13.06.1961 and Notification No.75/84-CE dt.01.03.1984 to be admissible to the appellant only for the period from 01.09.1985 to 28.02.1986. That on receipt of Supreme Court s decision appellant paid duty of ₹ 67,85,100 (out of total disputed duty of ₹ 84,82,950/-) on 04.03.2004 and an intimation to that effect was also given to Range Superint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of appellant and differential duty was paid within 3 months of the date of determination. Learned Advocate relied upon Chhatisgarh High Court s decision in the case of Raipur Bright Steel Wire Weld Industries Ltd. v. UOI [2014 (305) ELT 369(Chhatisgarh)]. (iv) That in any case there cannot be any demand for interest from the appellant, for the period 26.08.1995 to October 04.07.2002, when the duty amount was lying with the Revenue before being refunded to the appellant. 3. Shri A.Roy, Supdt.(AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that the duty amount will be deemed to have been confirmed under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 when the matter was decided by Supreme Court. Learned AR relied upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annum, as is for the time being fixed by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on such duty from the date immediately after the expiry of the said period of three months till the date of payment of such duty: Provided that where a person chargeable with duty determined under sub-section (2) of section 11A before the date on which the Finance Bill, 1995 receives the assent of the President, fails to pay such duty within three months from such date, then, such person shall be liable to pay interest under this section from the date immediately after three months from such date, till the date of payment of such duty. Explanation 1. -Where the duty determined to be payable is reduced by the Commissioner (App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules, 1944. Original Order-in-Original No.16-17/Pitch Creosote Mixture/DSD/88 dated 11.03.88 also does not specify that duty has been confirmed under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Section AA(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 clearly stipulates that interest is chargeable with respect to duty determined under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. No evidence/judicial precedent has been brought to our notice that any duty demanded/confirmed against an assessee under Central Excise law should be deemed to have been determined under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On the contrary appellant has relied upon Himachal Pradesh High Court s ruling in the case of CCE, Chandigarh vs. Eicher Demm (supra). In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee deposits the amount of duty within 45 days of being informed about the short deposit no interest shall be payable. 8.In view of this proviso, we are of the considered view that no penalty or interest could be levied on the assessee, firstly, because there is no order passed under Section 11-A and secondly, there is nothing on record to show that the assessee did not deposit the amount within 45 days of being informed of his liability. In fact, it is not the case of the Department that the assessee did not deposit the amount within 45 days. In the present proceedings appellant paid the entire duty within three months after being determined by Supreme Court, as required under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4.3 In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
