9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es that Where a person chargeable with duty determined under sub-section (2) of Section 11A, fails to pay such duty within three months from the date of such determination, he shall pay in addition to the duty, interest at the rate not below 18% and not exceeding 36% per annum, as is for the time being fixed by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on such duty from the date immediately after the expiry of the said period of three months till date of payment of such duty. On identical issue, a co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the matter of Excel Tyre Rubber Products vs. CCE, Mangalore [ 2016 (8) TMI 1070 - CESTAT BANGALORE ] after going through various decisions cited by the revenue in support of their submiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... independent unit viz. M/s. Harnik Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. were to be clubbed with the appellant. Accordingly show cause notice dated 8.4.1994 was issued to the appellant for the period January, 1991 to October, 1993 and demand was confirmed by the Order-in-Original dated 24.1.1996 whereby Central Excise duty of Rs.4,54,435/- with penalties was confirmed. It is relevant to mention here that neither any interest u/s. 11AA ibid was proposed in the show cause notice, as the same was inserted in the statute only w.e.f. 23.5.1995, nor was it imposed by the adjudicating authority in the Order-in- Original dated 24.1.1996. 4. After issuance of the show cause notice dated 8.4.1994, several similar show cause notices were issued to the appellant periodic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... outstanding recoverable government dues. The cheque of balance amount of Rs.5,49,685/- was issued to the appellant by the said authority. Since the appellant themselves consented for the deduction of the penalty from the refund amount therefore there is no dispute on that. But against deduction of the interest amount of Rs.9,41,315/- the appellant filed appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeal) who by way of impugned order dated 05.01.2012 rejected the same. Aggrieved the appellant filed appeal before this Tribunal which also got dismissed vide order dated 30.6.2017. After that the appellant approached the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay by way of Central Excise Appeal No. 34 of 2022 and the Hon ble High Court vide order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd, can the department deduct and adjust the same from the amount to be refunded? The reply of which, in my view, is in negative. The recovery of any sum without there being any proposal in the show cause notice or adjudication order therein, is totally illegal and unsustainable. No amount can be charged without there being any authority of law. Although order of Hon ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Commr. of Customs C.E. Bhopal vs. M/s. Tirupati Steel Industries ; 2005 (182) ELT 149 (M.P.) on the similar issue was cited before the Adjudicating Authority by the appellant in support of their claim but the same was brushed aside by the said authority as not applicable since it has been passed by the Hon ble Madhya Pradesh High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
