2007 (12) TMI 96

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ry, 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 1-3-2003, the rate of interest has changed. Since they paid duty and interest only after 1-3-2003, the rate prescribed in the above Notification will be applied, as duty amounts were outstanding on that date. The lower authority demanded Rs 24,99,127/- being the interest short-paid. Further, he imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The respondent approached the Commissioner (Appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mmissioner (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 situations viz. (i) Demand of Duty under Section 11A, (ii) Demand of interest on ware housed goods on expiry of normal warehousing period, the same principle as explained above is adopted while calculating the interest. This is a well-established procedure and the same has been upheld by various judicial fora on many occasions. 3. On a very careful consideration of the issue, we find that the default of paymen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ding 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 rate of interest was enhanced to 24%, they would not effected by the new rate. We do not find any infirmity in the Commissioner's reasoning. Therefore, we reject the Revenue's appeal. (Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open Court on conclusion of hearing)                         &nb .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X