9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raiyan, Member (T) [Order per M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)]. - This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 185/2006(Ahd-III)CE/DK/Comr (A) dated 30-11-2006. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows :- (a) The appellant is a manufacturer of Tarpaulin. There was a dispute whether the Tarpaulin would be classifiable under chapter heading 6309.06 attracting duty @ 8%, as claimed by the assessee or under chapter heading 3926 attracting duty @ 25% as proposed by the Department. (b) During the period from August, 1998 to February, 1999, the appellant has cleared the Tarpaulin with total assessable value Rs. 10,82,46,752/- and paid duty @ 8% amounting to Rs. 86,59,842/-. In other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payable, after adjusting the duty already paid comes to Rs. 1,29,89,508/-. Another issue involved in the present appeal is regarding the interest liability. The original demand as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) has been modified by the Tribunal. The actual determination of the duty payable has taken place in de novo proceedings whether the interest should be demanded from the date of original order or from the date of de novo order is the another issue. 5. According to the ld. Advocate, the assessable value Rs.10,82,46,752/- should be taken as cum-duty price and the duty liability should have been determined. The interest liability should only from the date of de novo order. 6. Ld. SDR reiterates the findings of the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on or before the date on which the Finance Bill-2001 receives the assent of the President therefore the appellants contention that since that duty had become payable or ought to have been paid before the passing to the passing of the Finance Act, 2001. Therefore, interest liability does not arise under Section 11AB(2), is not correct. Even other wise, I find that on the issue of interest the Commissioner, Central Excise, Ahmedabad-III had already passed an order-in-original No. 3/Commr/2002 dated 17-7-2002, which has attend finality. I therefore reject the appellants contention on interest uphold the order demanding interest." 9. We also find on perusal of the order of the Tribunal dated 25-2-2004, the Tribunal has clearly confirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
