9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting authority demanding interest and penalty has no validity. The Tribunal in the case of TATA MOTORS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PUNE-I [2008 (2) TMI 121 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], took a consistent view that prior to 01.03.2016, provisions of Rule 7(4) will be applicable only if there is any order of final assessment i.e. to say that the interest liability on an assessee will arise only if there is order of finalization of provisional assessment. The order of first appellate authority are in consonance with the provisions of Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/585/2011 - A/31049/2017 - Dated:- 3-7-2017 - Mr. M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Sh. Arun Kumar, Deputy Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsequent to the order for final assessment under sub rule (3); as the appellant had paid differential duty, they are liable to pay the interest on the amounts claim of Ld. DR before the Bench. 5. On careful consideration of the submissions from both sides, I find that the first appellate authority in the impugned order has recorded as following for setting aside the Order-in-Original. The findings are reproduced below: 8. The issue pertains to the period from 2004-05 to 2007-08. From the above correspondence available on record, it is observed that the following letters were issued by the department directing the appellants to pay the differential duty, presumed to have been done consequent to finalization of provisional assessment. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 19.04.2005 had remanded the issue back to the Commissioner for de-novo consideration. It was finally decided by the Commissioner in favour of the appellants vide OIO No.15/2007-08 (RS) dated 10.09.2007. Thus the OIO No.73/2003-04 (RP) which the department was relying throughout as provisional assessment order, in the letters cited above was not in force at all. The appellants were declaring in the ER-1 returns (as seen from the copies available in File IV/9/46/2008-Adj.), that they were clearing their finished goods to their sister concern at Hissar on provisional basis. However, it is observed that there was no correspondence or an order from the Department to either seek any clarification on this aspect nor any correspondence / order t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... procedure set forth under Rule 7 of CER 02 not being followed, the orders passed by the adjudicating authority demanding interest and penalty has no validity. As discussed above, Department was also relying on an order of the Commissioner which was issued for a different purpose and which was not in force, to demand interest and penalty from the appellant, as discussed above. On these grounds, the matter is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I pass the following order. 6. It can be seen from the above reproduced findings of the first appellate authority that, they are in consonance with the provisions of Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. It is also to be noted that this Tribunal has been taking a consistent view that prior to 01.03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
