9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EXCISE, RAIPUR [ 2019 (5) TMI 657 - SUPREME COURT] - 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. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No.40998 of 2019 - Final Order No. 41163/2019 - Dated:- 1-10-2019 - HON BLE MS. SULEKHA BEEVI. C.S., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri R. Janardhanan Pillai, Consultant for the Appellant Ms. K. Komathi, JC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts of the case are that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31.3.2000. The appellant is before the Tribunal against this confirmation of demand of interest. 2. On behalf of the appellant, Ld. Consultant Shri R. Janardhanan Pillai, appeared and argued the matter. He furnishes a chart narrating the dates and events with regard to present appeal and submitted that though demand of duty was originally confirmed by OIO No.11/2000 dt. 31.3.2000, there is no interest demand in this order. Further, this order was challenged by the appellant and set aside by the Tribunal vide Final Order dt. 18.11.2008. The Tribunal remanded the matter to verify availability of modvat credit. There were several rounds of litigation and finally the amount of ₹ 2,28,601/- determined by the original autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .31.3.2000 (1st OIO) Demanded duty under Rule (2) read with proviso to Section 11(1). No interest demanded . 2. OIA No.300/2001-CBE(GVN) dt.10.12.2001 Order in Original upheld. Order silent regarding interest, 3. Final Order No.1306/2008 dt.18.11.2008 Appeal filed against the above OIA decided by Tribunal by remanding the matter to verify the availability Modvat credit. Order silent regarding interest. 4. De novo Order in Original No.14/2009 dt.28/4/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eration 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 interest only from the date when the fresh order is passed. The Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Blue Star Vs UOI - 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T 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 interest from 24.02.2012 on the demand that has been confirmed. The prayer of the appellant is allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
