9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue before this forum becomes infructuous and is dismissed. - E/107/2008 - FO/A/75050/17 - Dated:- 13-1-2017 - Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri A.Roy, Suptd.(AR) for the Appellant Shri Hemant Karnani, Asst. Manager (Finance) for the Respondent ORDER Per: Shri P.K. Choudhary 1. Revenue has preferred this appeal against the impugned order wherein the Lower Appellate Authority had allowed the assessee's appeal by setting aside the Order-in-Original on the ground of time barred alone. 2. Shri Hemant Karnani, Assistant Manager (Finance) appearing on behalf of the respondent company submitted that the issue in the present appeal is regarding demand of interest of ₹ 23,55,718/- calculat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r filed appeal before CESTAT wrongly. In this case, the order-in-appeal was received by department on 12.12.07 and revision application was required to be filed by 12.3.2008. However, there is provision to condone delay upto 3 months if justified reasons exist for such delay. In this case, the delay can be condoned as the revision application was filed on 22.5.2008 before the expiry of 3 months condonable period. Therefore, Government in exercise of powers vested under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 condone the delay in filing revision application. 8. Applicant Commissioner has contended that duty liability is not contested by the respondent and therefore interest on delayed payment is payable in terms of section 11AB and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notified rate of interest in terms of Section 11AB. 9. Respondent have also pointed out that during year 2002-2003, in rule 8(3) of Central Excise Rule, 2002 there was no provision to charge ₹ 1000/- per day. The said provision was incorporated in 2003-2004. The factual position was not verified by adjudicating authority. Government observes that adjudicating authority has not given any finding on this point though it was mentioned in adjudication order. Similarly, the above mentioned High Court order was also not considered by adjudicating authority which against the principle of judicial discipline. 10. In view of above discussions, Government set aside the impugned order-in-appeal and order-in-original and remands the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
