Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1175 - AT - Central ExciseDemand - Refund - Notification No.32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 - Interest - Penalty - Rule 173Q, Rule 230 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Held that: - Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment R.C. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. -vs.- Union of India [2005 (9) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] upheld the constitutional validity of Sec.154 of the Finance Act 2003 and has also held that period of demand under Sec.11A of the Central Excise Act 1944 would not apply to the recovery of dues under Sec.154(4) of the Finance Act, 2003 - Appellant has argued that a quantified recovery letter/communication was required to be issued to them, under the provisions of Sec.154(4) of the Finance Act, 2003 specifying the demands/refund paid to them, alongwith specified amount of interest, so that appellant could pay the dues within 30 days from the assent of the President given to the Finance Bill, 2003 - Apex Court held that issuing of a demand show cause notice for the amount recoverable under the mandate of Section 154 of the Finance Act, 2003 will be an empty formality and stands covered by ‘useless formality theory’. The amount of duty in the case of Dharampal Satyapal vs. DCCE, Gauhati [2015 (5) TMI 500 - SUPREME COURT], decided by Apex Court, was also quantified and communicated to the appellant Dharmapal Satyapal Ltd. by a recovery order of June, 2003, as evident from Paras-6 and 39 of this case law As per the above provisions of Section 154(4) recovery shall be made of duty, interest or other charges within a period of 30 days from the day on which Finance Bill 2003 receives assent of President. The amounts recoverable will include interest payable under Sec.11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 even if not specifically mentioned in Section 154(4) of the Finance Act - Apex Court held that issuing of a demand show cause notice for the amount recoverable under the mandate of Section 154 of the Finance Act, 2003 will be an empty formality and stands covered by ‘useless formality theory’. The amount of duty in the case of Dharampal Satyapal vs. DCCE, Gauhati (supra), decided by Apex Court, was also quantified and communicated to the appellant Dharmapal Satyapal Ltd. by a recovery order of June, 2003, as evident from Paras-6 and 39 of this case law - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of the assessee.
|