9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LTD. AND 1 Versus UNION OF INDIA AND 1 [2016 (10) TMI 276 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] that it has retrospective application - the Hon’ble High Court has also considered the Board Circular No.655/46/2002 dated 26.8.2002 which was issued specifically in the background of Section 11AB of the Act. Neither the Circular was meant to cover Section 11AA nor the language used in Section 11AA would permit to apply such a clarification which was meant for Section 11AB of the Act - demand of interest upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/1104/2004 & E/208/2005 - Final Order No. 21406-21407 / 2017 - Dated:- 8-8-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Shri R. Parthasarathy, Consultant For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest before the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka which stayed the notice and thereafter, a Bank Guarantee for ₹ 19,00,000/- was furnished along with the bond and thereafter necessary certificate of registration was issued in favour of the appellant. Thereafter, the High Court vide order dated 25.11.2003 set aside the demand notice and directed the department to initiate the proceedings against the KMMCL and on the basis of direction, the Deputy Commissioner issued the show-cause notice dated 28.1.2004 initiated interest recovery proceedings to the tune of ₹ 75,23,613/- and after following the due process of law, the demand for interest was confirmed under Section 11AA. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions relied upon by the counsel for the appellant are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case and are distinguishable on facts. He further submitted that most of the case laws relied upon by the appellant relates to Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 but in the case of Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Company Ltd. vs. UOI reported in 2016-TIOL-2393-HC-AHM-CX wherein the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat has discussed in detail the difference in Section 11AA and Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act and has held that proviso to Section 11AA carried a clear indication with the Section that was meant to apply even in cases where liability to pay the duty might have arisen earlier or even determination might have bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b-section(2) of section 11A failed to pay the same within three months from the date of such determination. + It may, however, be open to a person to contend that interest liability being a substantive liability, the statute would not cover the past cases before its introduction. However, the proviso to section 11AA would change the entire situation. Under such proviso, even in cases where the duty liability not only arose prior to the introduction of section 11AA but was also determined under subsection (2) of section 11A and in which cases, the liability to pay interest would commence after three months of the introduction of section 11AA to the Act on the component of duty which remained unpaid after such date. + In other words ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
