9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No.9/2012-CE dt. 24.2.2012 confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,28,601/- and also allowed the benefit of modvat credit to the appellant. The penalty was reduced. The Commissioner (Appeals) ordered to pay interest on the duty confirmed. Against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant approached the Tribunal and vide Final Order No.40593/2016 dt. 08.04.2016, the Tribunal upheld the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Though an ROM application No.40420/2016 was filed by the appellant, the same was also dismissed by the Tribunal. The demand of Rs. 2,28,601/- therefore came to be confirmed. The appellant was thereafter issued a notice to pay the interest upon the duty confirmed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TVS Ltd. - 2010 (262) ELT 444 (Tri-Chennai) to argue that in a similar matter, this Tribunal has held that interest is payable only from the date of passing the fresh order by the Commissioner (Appeals) which stands affirmed by Hon'ble Madras High Court reported in 2016 (333) ELT 259 (Mad.) 3. Ld. A.R Ms. K. Komathi appeared on behalf of the department. She submitted that the duty was originally determined by the order dt. 31.3.2000. Therefore the appellant is liable to pay interest from this date. To support this argument, she relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in M/s.Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs CCE Raipur, reported in 2019-TIOL-204-SC-CX-LB. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The issue is with respect to the date from which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e CESTAT Appeal filed against the above OIA dismissed upholding the OIA. 9. Misc. Order No.40420/2016 ROM filed against the above final order dismissed holding that it amounts to re-consideration case. 6. Thus it is seen from the above date chart that though the original authority confirmed demand vide order dt. 31.3.2000, there was no demand of interest. Further, after several rounds of litigation, the demand of interest has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who has finally determined / ascertained the duty payable by the appellant. This has happened only on 24.2.2012. The Tribunal in the case of CCE Chennai Vs Lucas TVS (supra) had occasion to consider a similar issue and held that the appellant has to pay the interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .A filed against aforecited Tribunal decision has been dismissed by the jurisdictional Madras High Court, reported in 2016 (333) ELT 259 (Mad.) 7. It is clearly applicable to the facts of the case. The Ld. A.R has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SAIL (supra). On perusal of the facts of the case the question that was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court is with regard to interest liability in the case of final determination of duty when the assessee resorts to provisional assessment. Therefore, the said case is distinguishable on facts. 8. After appreciating the facts of the case, evidence and the position of law, I am of the view that the appellant succeeds in his argument. Appellant is liable to pay int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
