9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich has done away with the mechanism seeking permission of CoD. As such, the second application of the appellant could not be considered by the CoD. The question of interest, therefore, has not been addressed by any of the authorities. The matter is remitted to the CESTAT for consideration of the limited aspect of interest on duty - Appeal allowed. - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3611 OF 2015 - - - Dated:- 28-7-2022 - B. R. GAVAI And HIMA KOHLI , JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. V. Sridharan , Sr. Adv. Mr. Aditya Bhattacharya , Adv. Ms. Mounica Kasturi , Adv. Ms. Apeksha Mehta , Adv. Mr. Sahil Parghi , Adv. Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran , AOR For the Respondent : Mr. Arijit Prasad , Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria , AOR JUDGMENT B. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to pursue the appeal only on penalty aspect. As regards, the duty aspect, the CoD held that in the CENVAT Regime, the dispute was revenue neutral. 4. In pursuance of the permission granted, the appellant filed an appeal being Appeal No. Ex.396/ 2006, before the CESTAT. After hearing, the appeal was allowed by the CESTAT setting aside the penalty vide order dated 11th June, 2007. 5. It is the contention of the appellant that in the meanwhile, the authorities issued a series of letters directing the appellant to deposit the duty amount. As such, the appellant deposited the duty demand of Rs.15.66 crore under protest. 6. The appellant, thereafter on 11th February 2011, filed a fresh application before the CoD, requesting for permissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve heard Shri V. Sridharan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Arijit Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 10. Shri Sridharan submitted that the question whether the appellant was liable to pay interest on the duty or not, has not been considered by any authority. He submitted that the CoD, vide its Minutes of Meeting dated 2nd November 2006, had granted liberty only to challenge the penalty aspect. However, subsequently on demand made by the authorities, the appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.15.66 crore. Therefore, the question as to whether the appellant was liable to pay interest on the duty is to be considered. 11. Shri Prasad, on the contrary, submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
