9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)].- 1. Revenue has filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 116/2005 (H-III), dated 20-5-2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Appeals - III. 2. The respondent defaulted on three occasions in payment of duty due to the exchequer in the month of June and July of year 2002. Finally they paid the amount in December, 2003, January, 2004, February, 2004 and March, 2004. They paid the interest amounting to Rs 64,17,534/- through TR-6 Challans at the rate of 15% in terms of Rule 8(3) read with Notification 19/2002-C.E., dated 13-5-2002. However, the Revenue proceeded against the respondent on the ground that after 1-3-2003 by virtue of Notification 12/2003, dated 1-3-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3-2004) the rate of interest was @ 24% PA (Notfn.12/2003). In the Order-in-Original the Additional Commissioner has thoroughly discussed these points and the differential interest payable was confirmed accordingly. However Commissioner (A) has not taken into cognizance these points and erred in dropping the order. The case law of M/S. Beco Chemicals (P) Ltd. v. CCE , 2003 (156) E.L.T. 668 quoted by Commissioner (A) is based on different circumstances and is not at all relevant to the present case. Without prejudice to any thing mentioned above, this is a plain case of applicability of rate of interest during the period i.e. between date on which duty was due and date on which duty was actually paid. And when we compare similar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the deposits made earlier. The same principle should applied here. On the date of default whatever rate of interest was in existence, the same thing will hold good, even though by another Notification the rate of interest has gone. The second Notification in the present case namely 12/2003 dated 1-3-2003 will be applicable only for the default which occurred after 1-3-2003. The Commissioner is very correct in holding that as per article 20(1) of the Constitution no person should be punished under a law which is not in existence at, the time of Commission of the offence. In the present case, the offence namely the default was committed in the year 2002 when the rate of interest was 15%. So, even if they had paid that interest after the ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
