9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 988X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order No. FO/A/76850/2017 - Dated:- 25-8-2017 - Shri P. K. Choudhary, Hon ble Judicial Member Shri. Ravi Raghvan, Advocate Shri Nivedita Agarwal, C.A. for the Petitioner Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, Suptd. (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Shri P. K. Choudhary The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Iron Steel products. A Show Cause Notice dated 22.02.1999 was issued proposing demand of duty and imposition of penalty for the period from November 1996 to November 1998. By order No. A-600/KOL/2009 dated 09.10.2009 the Tribunal upheld the demand of duty penalty and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority on demand of interest. By the impugned order, the Commissioner confirmed the recovery of interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iv) Birla Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2014 (307) ELT 924 (Tri.). (v) Cross Point Chemical Indus. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2008 (229) ELT 719 (Tri.). (vi) Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M.P. Tapes 1998 (103) ELT 128 (Tri.). (vii) Golden Tobacco Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2015 (317) ELT 164 (Tri.). (viii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. UCAL Fuel Systems Ltd. 2014 (307) ELT 79 (Mad.). (13) Govt. of India Vs. Indian Tobacco Association 2005 (187) ELT 162 (S.C.). 5. I find that CBEC vide Circular No. 655/46/2002-CEX dated 26.06.2002 clarified as under:- 6. Section 11AB(2) [as well as Section 11AB(1)] has been substituted w.e.f. 11.05.2001 by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 001 and ₹ 5,865/- paid on 5-3-2003. In support of their contention, the ld. advocate for the appellant referred to the judgment of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Ramkumar Mills (supra) and also the Division Bench judgment in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (supra). I find that the Division Bench of this Tribunal in Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. s case (supra) after analyzing the interest provision viz. Section 11AA Section 11AB of CEA at Para 5 has held as under : Under sub-section (1) of Sec. 11AA of the Act, as this 5. provision stood at the material time, an assessee who fails to pay the duty determined under sub-section (2) of Section 11AA of the Act, within 3 months from the dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eported in 2008 (229) E.L.T. 153 (Tri.-Bang.) and at Para 5 held as under : The 5. learned Advocate clarified the point. He stated that earlier before 2001 the interest provision was applicable only when the demand is on account of the suppression of facts, fraud, etc. when longer period was invoked. However, consequent to the amendment in 2001, the interest became payable in respect of all demands. It was pointed out in the present case, in view of the clear findings of the Tribunal, no penalty has been imposed. In such cases, interest would not be leviable prior to the date on which the Finance Bill, 2001 received the assent of the President. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the Central Excise Duty on the goods procured ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
