|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 338 Records
-
2017 (7) TMI 838 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Classification of goods - Steel Bakhari or Tin Containers used for storing grains - classified under CTH 7309 or under CTH 8436? - Held that: - the term machinery has been used in the most expansive sense to cover even the apparatus or equipment or appliance which need not be machine. The word equipment has been defined in Compact Oxford Dictionary as the items needed for a particular activity or purpose. On the reading of the dictionary meaning it is clear that if a particular item is used for a particular purpose, will be equipment or apparatus. In the present case since the Steel Bakhari is used for storing seeds and is needed for the said purpose, is an equipment or apparatus and thus being the item of agriculture, is classifiable under entry 84.36 leviable to NIL rate of duty - Reliance in also placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Thermax Ltd. V. CCE [1995 (11) TMI 139 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] which has held grain storage systemas classifiable under heading 84.36.
Classification of goods - Tractor Trollywithout Hub and Tyres & Parts - Held that: - where it has clearly been stated by the Appellant that the tractor trolley in question is not attached with any wheels or tyres, hub and motor, the same has been wrongly classified as a trailer or vehicle under Chapter Sub Heading 8716.00 as opposed to 84.32/84.36 claimed by the Appellant.
Classification of Machine Base (Theeha) - classified under CTH 7326 or under CTH 8433? - Held that: - as the item in question is a part of the thresher machine, it will be covered within the Chapter Sub heading 8433 and nilrate of duty will apply to the same. The thresher machine cannot work without the stand (theeha) as it will be of use only when the machine is placed on the theeha/base.
Classification of Tractor Phar (Hal-Ki-Nok) - classified under CTH 8201 or under CTH 8432? - Held that: - Agricultural, Horticultural or forestry machinery for soil preparation or cultivation; lawn or sports ground rollers at nil rate of duty as prescribed for goods within such classification. The explanation of machineryas hereinabove is adopted for the purpose of classifying the said item.
Classification of Phawara blade/Belch (both without stick) - classified under CTH 8201 or 8432? - Held that: - a spade, in commercial parlance cannot be without a stick or handle - It has been stated by the Appellant that the stick or handle is not provided by them and the same has not been refuted by the Department. The Adjudicating Authority has wrongly denied the benefit of nilrate of duty to the said items by incorrectly classifying them under Chapter Sub Heading 8201 as the items in question are both without handle but are used for soil preparation and cultivation and are therefore classifiable under Chapter Sub Heading 8432.
Classification of Tasla - classified under chapter 73 or under chapter 84? - Held that: - item is classifiable under Chapter Sub Heading 8433 which reads as Harvesting or threshing machinery, including straw or fodder balers; grass or hay movers; machines for cleaning, sorting or grading eggs, fruit or other agricultural produce, other than machinery of heading 8437as the item in question is used for the preparation and cultivation of soil and for the preparation and cultivation of soil and for purposes of cleaning, sorting and grading of agricultural produce.
SSI exemption - Steel Almirah & Steel Furniture - It is submitted that the exemption under N/N. 198/87-CE has been wrongly denied to the Appellant for the goods falling under the Chapter Heading 94.03 - Held that: - It is an admitted position that the Appellant is a KVIC unit [Para 21 of the Order-in-Original]. Further, it is also not disputed that the goods are genuine products of village industry or that the goods are marketed by or with assistance of the Khadi & Village Industries Commission - In the present case the intention of the notification has been satisfied and the certificate from U.P. Khadi & Village India Board which is the implementing agency of Khadi & Village Industries Commission, recognizing Appellant as a KVIC Unit, satisfies the condition of the Notification including the purpose for which exemption was granted. It is submitted that the exemption has been wrongly declined on the sole ground that the certificate is not from KVIC while recognizing that the Unit is a KVIC Unit.
Exemption under Sr. No. 73.10 of the Notification No. 3/2001 dated 01.03.2001, 4/97-CE dated 01.03.1997, 5/98 dated 02.06.1998, 5/99 dated 28.02.1999, 6/2000 dated 01.03.2000 & 3/2001 dated 01.03.2001 - Held that: - the exemption under Notification No. 4/97 dated 01.03.1997, 5/98 dated 02.06.1998, 5/99 dated 09.02.1999, 6/2000 dated 01.03.2000 & 3/2001 dated 01.03.2001 is available to the Appellant as the Appellant had adduced sufficient evidence to substantiate its claim and the Order-in-Original, to that extent, is liable to be set aside - the Department has not discharged the burden of proof for disputing the classification as they have adduced no positive evidence to refute the claims of the appellant and therefore, the demands are unsustainable.
Extended period of limitation - Held that: - the submissions of the appellant are uncontroverted more particularly under the admitted fact that there was no power connection in the factory premises, at the time of inspection and/or drawal of proceedings and there is no investigation by the Revenue, as to the period, during which the appellant had connection from the Electricity Department and other relevant fact like, number of units consumed, etc. It is admitted fact that they were using generator for running their welding machine and compressor. Under these admitted facts, we hold that the appellant is not liable to excise duty on the Steel Boxes & Almirah and they are entitled to exemption under Notification No. 30/2001-CE dated 01/03/2001.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 837 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Valuation - petroleum products - whether the petroleum products cleared from warehouse to company owned and company operated outlets are to be valued in terms of Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules? - Held that: - this issue has been settled in favour of the appellant by various decisions of the Tribunal specifically, in the case of BPCL [2007 (8) TMI 137 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], where Appellant PSU unit had removed goods to their sales outlets under Administrative Pricing Mechanism but revenue rejected the same and demand raised by applying Section 4(4)(b)(iii) of CEA,1944 and Section 4(1)(b)ibid in two distinct period for valuation purpose, Valuation of appellant accepted and demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 836 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
CENVAT credit - sugar cess - it was noticed by the Department that the assessee had availed credit of "sugar cess" as input credit in respect of sugar purchased from other sugar factories for reprocessing. As per Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 the assessee is not entitled for the cenvat credit of cess on sugar as the cess on sugar is not specified in sub clause (i) to (xi) of Rule 3(1) of the CCR 2004 - Held that: - the issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra and has been settled by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. [2014 (1) TMI 1469 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], where it was held that Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules provides that a manufacturer or producer of a final product shall be allowed to take credit of the duty of excise. Therefore, once a duty of excise is paid, the manufacturer or producer of the final product is entitled to take CENVAT credit - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (7) TMI 835 - CESTAT BANGALORE
CENVAT credit - job-work - denial on three grounds namely that the same has been availed on invalid documents i.e. xerox copies of invoice and secondly non-receipt of goods sent for job work within 180 days and thirdly non-reversal of Cenvat credit on the provision made for obsolete inventory? - Held that: - the appellant has proved on record that he has rightly taken the Cenvat credit on the xerox copies of the invoice and with regard to non-receipt of goods sent for job work within 180 days, he has reversed the credit on the basis of audit objections - once the appellant has reversed the Cenvat credit on being pointed out by the audit then the department should not have issued the show-cause notice, the department has not brought any material on record to show that there was fraud, willful suppression and collusion and suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty.
The impugned order is not sustainable in law in so far the imposition of penalties and interest are concerned - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 796 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
CENVAT credit - time limitation - Section 11A of the Act - whether the Tribunal has rightly allowed the appeal on the ground of limitation, taking into account Section 11A of the Act? - Held that: - A similar question was considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cosmic Dye Chemical Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [1994 (9) TMI 86 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where it was held that the allegation of willful suppression with intent to evade was not established, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal.
In the present case the show cause notice cum demand issued by the respondent is certainly time barred - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (7) TMI 795 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - Held that: - there is no dispute to the fact that the appeal involves the determination of the question having relation to the rate of duty of excise which inter-alia includes the exemption of the duty.
A Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Commissioner of Custom and Central Excise Vs. Eco Products (I) Pvt. Ltd., [2013 (6) TMI 120 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], in relation to Section 35 (G) and 35 (L) of the Central Excise Act held that where a question is based on the eligibility of the goods manufactured by the manufacturer for exemption under any notification, such question of exemption is directly and proximately related to the rate of duty for the purpose of assessment of excise duty payable and as such is excluded from the purview of appeal before the High Court under Section 35 (G) of the Act and the remedy is to file an appeal before the Apex Court under Section 35 (L) of the Act.
Appeal dismissed being not maintainable.
-
2017 (7) TMI 794 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Clandestine manufacture and removal - there was receipt of about 55 MTs of MS Ingots which were not accounted in their records - Held that: - there is nothing which indicates that the Respondent had engaged himself into manufacturing clandestinely on the goods received from his suppliers and cleared the said finished goods clandestinely. On a specific query from the Bench it was pointed out that none of allegations in the show-cause notice considered the issue as to how a final product can be manufactured clandestinely without the receipt of raw-material. In my view the entire demand which has been worked out in the show-cause notice under allegation that there was clandestine removal is based upon presumptions and assumptions which cannot stand scrutiny of the law - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (7) TMI 793 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Restoration of appeal on production of necessary clearance from COD - applicant could not get COD clearance in respect of two appeals - Held that: - though the fact of denial of clearance was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal, the liberty to apply for restoration granted in such final orders become nullity as it was clearly recorded that such restoration will be on production of necessary clearance. In respect of these two appeals, we find no merit at all in the present applications to recall the order of the Tribunal.
Regarding Appeal No.E/1288/2006, the appellants submitted that they have got COD clearance on 18.12.2007. In spite of repeated queries by the Bench, the applicant could not submit any reason for delay of more than 10 years, after the COD clearance was given by the competent authority. Even considering that on 17.02.2011 the Hon’ble Supreme Court recalled the earlier order and dispensed with the COD clearance mechanism, for another 6 years, the applicant did not take any action regarding the dismissal orders passed in 2006. Here again, no reasons were putforth for such attitude of the applicant.
The matter, which are considered and decided by the Committee of Disputes and permission specifically denied, cannot be re-opened. As such, in the present case, two appeals cannot be even considered for recalling. On the third appeal, we note that 10 years delay, after the COD permitted the applicant to file an appeal, has not been explained at all.
Appeal dismissed - decided against applicant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 792 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Refund claim - Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004 read with N/N. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 - rejection on the ground of time limitation - Section 11B of the CEA, 1944 - Held that: - while entertaining the refund claim filed by the appellant, the same was rejected as time barred because the refund claim was required to be filed within one year of the date of export. In fact, the adjudicating authority is required to ascertain the date on which the goods have been exported and corresponding date of filing the refund claim and if the refund claim is filed within time limit prescribed under the Act of the date of export as defined under Section 11B of the Act, in that circumstances, the refund claim cannot be rejected as time barred.
The fact is to be ascertained by the adjudicating authority on production of relevant documents by the respondent - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (7) TMI 791 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Whether storage of finished and semi-finished goods, raw materials outside factory premises is permissible or not?
Held that: - In the present case, the appellant stored the goods outside of the factory premises without the permission of the Commissioner in violation of the provisions of the Notification. The ld.Counsel for the appellant mainly argued that they informed the Range Superintendent. Admittedly, he is not competent authority to allow the storage outside of the factory premises - confiscation justified - In any event there is no suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of duty and therefore, imposition of penalty under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 would not be warranted.
Redemption fine reduced to ₹ 25,000/- - a general penalty imposed of ₹ 10,000/- - other penalties set aside.
Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 790 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Classification of goods - it was alleged that the appellant is giving a specified shape and also cutting them into required length, as per specifications of the customer after cold rolling for use as fabrication of shutters, therefore, it was alleged that the said products is classifiable under chapter Heading 7308.90 of the CETA, 1985 - Held that: - As the process of manufacturing has been examined by this Tribunal in the case of Nav Durga Steel Products [2015 (10) TMI 37 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] it is held that the resultant product is classifiable under section 7216.20 of the Tariff Act - the items in question manufactured by the appellant are more appropriately classifiable under chapter heading 7216.20 of the Tariff Act - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 789 - CESTAT CHENNAI
SSI exemption - clubbing of clearances - The allegation is that the appellant unit is the main unit and Sri R.D. Pandian who is proprietor is controlling all the other three units which were floated by Sri R.D. Pandian in the name of his wife and other family members - Held that: - The fact that all the three units are situated at one place which is separated by passages; that all the four units belong to the same family members; that account of one unit is seen reflected in the account of another unit; that the raw materials are used in common or being diverted to the other unit; the use of machineries commonly by all the four units as well as the workers in all the four units being the same; the conclusion reached by the adjudicating authority, in our view is right and proper - the department has been able to sufficiently establish that there existed flow back of funds and mutuality of interest among four units - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 759 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Clandestine manufacture and removal of Pan Masala - Held that: - the whole case of clandestine manufacture and clearance based on certain private records and recovered from the premises of third party, cannot be sustained in absence of any cogent corroborative supporting evidences.
Excess clearances of dutiable pan masala over and above the declared quantities - Held that: - the said fact has been admitted not only the main appellant, but also by various dealers, who dealt with the said items - the admitted facts corroborated by the dealers indicated to the evidence of un-accounted clearance of excess amount of pan masala pouches over and above recorded quantity. In such situation, it is for the main appellant to establish with supporting evidence to the effect that since when such practice was in vogue. It appears that in case of admitted fact corroborated by the dealers, the appellant is trying to restrict the duty demand by asserting that such clearance of excess pouches were only after 2003 - the duty demand of ₹ 3,93,857/- calculated based on evidences recorded during investigation is sustainable against the main appellant. Penalty equivalent to such amount in terms of Section 11AC is also sustainable.
Confiscation of 49 bags of pan masala found in the factory premises of the main appellant - confiscation on the ground that the same are not duly accounted for and were intended for clandestine manufacture later - Held that: - the original authority held that the duty paid clearance of such goods earlier could not be linked with the seized goods and accordingly, he held that these were non-duty paid items. When the products was stated to be damaged items, the question of their marketability as excisable goods has to be examined. The same has not been done by the original authority. He made a summary conclusion that the duty paid nature of the said product has not been established. We note that if the product is not fit for market, the duty paid nature or otherwise of the same is of no relevance. Accordingly, we hold that the confiscation ordered on the above two items is not legally sustainable.
Penalty u/r 26 of CER, 2002 - Held that: - the case for non-duty paid clearance, the main appellant is penalized under Section 11AC, which is equal to the duty amount. The main appellant is proprietorship firm. There is no separate identity for the proprietor from the proprietory firm. As such, we find no justification for imposition of additional penalty on the proprietor under Rule 26.
Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 758 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Refund claim - Manufacture of Pan Masala - case of appellant is that they operated only 5 machines during the month of August, 2011 from 01.08.2011 to 15.08.2011 and the entire duty of ₹ 62,50,000/- involved on the said five machines was paid on 06.08.2011, also, they stopped complete production of the same from 16th August till the end of August - Held that: - The sealing of all machines and the subsequent sealing of 5 machines is not disputed by the department - the provisions of PMPM Rules that Rule 10 specifically provides for abatement of duty paid by an assessee when the machines are not functioning.
In the instant case, the appellant has discharged the entire duty liability for the month of August 2011 by calculating the liability based upon the functioning of five machines which were also subsequently closed from 16th August 2011. In my considered view, the abatement that is provided under Rule 10 will be applicable to the appellant herein and Revenue is mandated to refund the said amount which has been collected in excess by them from the respondent.
There cannot be any demand of duty from the respondent for the period from 16.08.2011 to 31.08.2011 and having paid the entire duty for the month of August in advance, the respondent is eligible for the refund of the duty paid in excess - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (7) TMI 757 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Status of the appellant as a registered co-operative society - Benefit of N/N. 88/1988-CE dated 01.03.1988 - Revenue entertained a view that the appellant is a registered co-operative society with the restricted validity of Patna Corporation area. As such they have no recognition as co-operative society in Sabajpura village where the excise unit is located, so exemption denied - Held that: - The jurisdictional Central Excise officer has taken up this issue specifically with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Patna. In response the Assistant Registrar vide his letter dated 16.05.2006 clarified that the registration is given as co-operative society when the members of such society reside within the jurisdiction of Patna Municipal Corporation. As such we note that the registering authority justified the registration and also noted the starting of manufacturing facility in the village after due permission from the B.D.O. of Danapur.
It is clear that the appellants continue to be a co-operative society duly registered by the competent authority. They will be co-operative society for the purpose of the present Notification as the said Notification did not prescribe that registration of the society also should be in the area where the unit is located - In the present case a registered co-operative society is having the unit in rural area and manufacturing specified goods in terms of the said Notification. The facts and circumstances of the case regarding claim of exemption Notification, was brought to the notice of the Assistant Registrar, Patna Circle by the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise vide his letter dated 31.03.2006. In fact the Superintendent specifically alleged that the society clearly violates the area of operation mentioned in the registration and as such requested for action taken for de-registration of the said society.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 756 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Refund claim - deemed exports - denial on the ground that clearances which are effected to 100% EOUs, cannot be equated to physical exports and hence Provisions of Rule 5 do not get attracted - Held that: - First Appellate Authority after considering the submissions made before him by the assessee/respondent as also various decisions, has correctly held that the refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 in respect of clearances made to 100% EOU is admissible - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (7) TMI 755 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Deletion of interest and penalty - demand of interest was on the ground that the assessments were provisional - The first appellate authority on an appeal set aside demand recording that there was no formal assessment procedure followed as per provision 7(i) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that: - Though the appellant were declaring that the goods were being cleared to their sister concern was on provisional basis, there was no formal order from the Department that the assessment was being done on a provisional basis and with the procedure set forth under Rule 7 of CER 02 not being followed, the orders passed by the adjudicating authority demanding interest and penalty has no validity.
The Tribunal in the case of TATA MOTORS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PUNE-I [2008 (2) TMI 121 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], took a consistent view that prior to 01.03.2016, provisions of Rule 7(4) will be applicable only if there is any order of final assessment i.e. to say that the interest liability on an assessee will arise only if there is order of finalization of provisional assessment.
The order of first appellate authority are in consonance with the provisions of Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (7) TMI 754 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Deemed Manufacture - appellant are engaged in manufacture of Computer Bracket Assembly and in addition, they are also engaged in the export of parts / components of motor vehicles to M/s. Hyundai Assan Otomotive Sanayi, Turkey and other countries - whether the activity undertaken by the appellants tantamount to deemed manufacture as per Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944? - Held that: - after packing, the shipping mark label is affixed on the box - Three types of packing are undertaken depending on the type of automobile parts. They are: (a) carton box packing, (b) wooden box packing and (c) metal pallet packing. The packed carton box is stuffed inside the container for export.
The process of labeling and packing explained by the learned Senior Advocate, would satisfy the ingredients of deemed manufacture under Section 2(f)(iii) of Central Excise Act, 1944. The submission of learned AR that such packing is only for the purpose of transportation and that the labeling is only for the purpose of identification are too flimsy and not backed by any legal basis.
The Standard of Weights and Measures Act, 1987 though provides for affixing the Retail Sale Price on packaged commodities, the said legislation has nothing to do with the question whether tune activity undertaken by the assessee amounts to manufacture or not. As per sub-clause (iii) of the said definition, packing / repacking or labeling or re-labelling would amount to the process of manufacture and the appellants have been able to successfully establish that such activities have been undertaken by them after purchase of the goods from various vendors till the goods are exported.
The activities undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture and they are liable to avail CENVAT credit on the inputs / input services used in the export of goods - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 753 - CESTAT CHENNAI
CENVAT credit - MS Sheets, angles, MS plates, channels, MS Flats, Beams, Joining sheets, bars, channels, squares, round bars, etc. falling under Chapter 72 - case of the Revenue is that these items are only structural materials used in construction and therefore are not covered under the definition of capital goods under Rule 2 (a) (A) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - It is intriguing that the department sought to nail the tax payer on the ground that they were not able to produce in 2016-17, documents and registers which were more than thirteen years old, of 2003 vintage. It is even more interesting to note that the SCNs themselves states that the apparent irregularity came to light only at the time of verification of Cenvat Credit account by the Department. Nonetheless, if the returns have been regularly filed such a doubt should have been detected or got investigated at the time of filing of returns and certainly not thirteen years later.
The entire dispute has been festering, atleast for the last thirteen years, without any light at the end of the dispute tunnel. While the impugned SCNs alleged that the appellants have wrongly availed Cenvat credit on MS sheets, angles, MS plates, channels etc., on the grounds that they are structural materials used in construction, no further illumination is extant in those notices to support such allegation. Nor is there any whisper in any of the notices, as to the exact manner of usage that these disputed items had been put to use by the appellants - when the original SCNs themselves did not in the first place refer to any supporting evidence or corroboration of the allegations therein, after as many as thirteen long years, the onus is now being put on the appellants, that the latter are unable to produce the documents. It was for the Department to have clearly substantiated their allegation with reasoning and evidence, and not the other way around.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 718 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Classification of goods - AED - Embroidered Grey Fabrics - the central excise department alleged that the appellant had incorrectly classified the product under chapter heading No. 5804.11 as “Lace/Motif of Cotton” instead of chapter heading No. 5804.19 as “Embroidery”. The department was of the view that the appellant is liable to pay AED (TTA) @ 15% instead of 8% w.e.f. 20/08/1998 onwards - demand of interest - Held that: - Sections 11AC and 11AB of Excise Act have not been incorporated in the ADE (T&TA) Act. The counsel appearing for the Department/Respondent though endeavoured unable to pinpoint the incorporation of these Sections. In absence of any statutory provisions, it is settled that any demand of penalty (11AC) and/or interest (11AB) would be without jurisdiction and authority of law. It is settled that a clear statutory mandate requires for authority to collect and/or raise demand of any tax and penalty and/or interest. In the absence of such provision, any demand in the present case, of penalty/interest is unauthorised, impermissible and unsustainable.
The Department itself, therefore, accepted the position of law and even set aside such imposition under Section 11AC by Additional Commissioner by order dated 29.03.2010. In view of above, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 26.12.2012 whereby order to refund the amount in view of above, but directed to appropriate the interest to be paid by the assessee (Appellant) under Section 11 of the Excise Act, is unsustainable - The order of recovery of interest at appropriate rate for delayed payment by invoking the provision of Section 11AB of Excise Act, therefore, is unjust, unclaimable as it is illegal. In view of above reasons, the confirmation of the same by the impugned order dated 27.09.2013 is also unsustainable and is required to be set aside.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
............
|
