9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntry and since the department has not challenged the Tribunal’s order, the same attained finality. Validity of second SCN - Held that:- Since the show cause notice for the demand had already been issued and the same was held to be time-barred by the Tribunal, for the same demand, second show cause notice is bad in law and is illegal. Therefore, the demand in the show cause notice in the present case itself is illegal. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/708/2011-DB - A/10200/2019 - Dated:- 10-1-2019 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri Amit Kumar Mishra, Jt. Commissioner (AR) for the Appellant-Revenue Shri Willingdon Christian, Advocate for the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der. 3. Shri Willingdon Christian, Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/assessee submits that ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has categorically decided that the issue of interest has already been decided by the Tribunal that the demand of interest is time-barred. Therefore, once the very same issue has been decided and no appeal was made by the department, it attained finality. The same issue cannot be decided again even after the final assessment of Bills of Entry. Therefore, the impugned order needs to be upheld. 4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides and perusal of the record, we find that the issue to be decided is that, whether the demand of interest made subsequent to finalization of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice F.No. V.Ch.27(4)11/Dem/A(/Div-IV/03 dated. 03.03.04. demanding interest of ₹ 2,27,28,607/- not paid at the time of clearance of re-warehoused goods from their private bonded warehouse after expiry 30 days of interest free period was issued by Commissioner, Central Excise Customs. Vadodara -1. which was adjudicated and confirmed by the Commissioner, Vide OIO No. 23/ Demand/Comrnr.1/2004 dtd. 29-11-2004. The said order was appealed against by the appellant before Tribunal and the Iatter, vide Final Order No. 455/07 dtd. 25-09-07, ordered to set aside the order of the Commissioner, holding that the demand of interest was time barred. The said order as not contested by the deptt. and interest of ₹ 2,17,07,660/- paid by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind that the Asst. Commr has exceeded his jurisdiction by appropriating an amount of interest which was set aside by the Tribunal and the order was also accepted by the deptt. The order of the lower authority is against the doctrine of judicial discipline and therefore not sustainable and bad in law. The act is as good as reversing the order of the Tribunal, already accepted and acted upon. 5.1.4. Since the comments from the JAC did not throw any light on the grounds for demanding the interest, already held time barred, he was vide letter dtd. 08 03-2011, requested to clarify the grounds for demanding the interest again, when once, it was heId time barred by the Tribunal. Further comments were offered vide letter dtd, 13-04-2011 (also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the remaining Ex-Bond Bill of Entries, covered h the SCN dtd. 03.03.04, issued and confirmed by the Commissioner vide his order dtd. 29-11-04. which came to be set aside by the Tribunal, as discussed in detail in para 5.1.1 5.1 .2 above, Also the report of the Asstt. Commissioner is silent about the grounds warranting action contrary to the Tribunal s order already accepted and acted upon too by the deptt. Under the Circumstance, I find no ground to uphold the impugned order 5. On going through the above findings, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld. Revenue s appeal is dismissed. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central Excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
