9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... US CITEDAL FINE PHARMACEUTICALS [ 1989 (7) TMI 100 - SUPREME COURT] noted the fact that even where no period of limitation is provided under Section 11AB of the Act for recovery of interest, yet a reasonable period has to be read into the provision. It was thus, incumbent upon the Revenue to issue show cause notice within a reasonable period demanding interest. This not having been done by alleging suppression etc., the extended period of limitation provided under the Act cannot apply as to yardstick of reasonable period - the demands for interest was held to time-barred. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the part of the petitioner was in respect of the delayed payment of differential duty was issued by the respondent. However, the respondent had not paid the interest payable on the differential duty paid in terms of Section 11AB of the Act. (b) Thereafter, in the year 2009, the respondent issued two show cause notices dated 17/08/2009 and 24/08/2009 seeking to recover interest on the differential duty paid in 2005-06 and 2006-07, on the differential value on issue of the supplementary invoices. Both the notices were issued on the ground that in view of Section 11AB of the Act, interest was payable at the time of payment under Section 11A(2B) of the Act from the time, the goods were removed from the factory till the payment of the duty. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect of the same respondent. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 27/11/2011 of the Tribunal, the Revenue is in appeal before us. At the very outset, it is submitted that though the appeal was filed from the earlier order dated 11/10/2011, the same was withdrawn due to low tax effect. 5. We note that an identical issue viz. issue of limitation in respect of interest under Section 11AB of the Act has been considered by the Tribunal on identical facts in the case of EMCO Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, 2011 (272) E.L.T.136, after placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner V/s. TVS Whirlpool Ltd. 2000 (119) E.L.T. A177 (S.C.) and Government of India V/s. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
