2009 (9) TMI 833 - AT - Central Excise

Time limitation - demand was raised u/r 12 of the CCR 2002 read with Section 11AB of the CEA 1944 - Held that - Although Rule 12 and Section 11AB do not prescribe any period of limitation for issue of demand for recovery of interest the very same issue stands settled in favor of the assessee by the Tribunal s decision in Collector of Customs Madras v. T.V.S. Whirlpool Ltd. 1996 (4) TMI 232 - CEGAT MADRAS holding that even when no time limit is prescribed for demand/recovery of interest under the CA 1962 time limit of six months or five years as the case may be as provided u/s 28 of the CA 1962 is applicable to such cases. The demand for recovery of interest is barred by limitation as it has been raised only in 2005 without any allegation that the assessees were guilty of fraud suppression mis-statement of facts etc. with intention to evade payment of duty. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

The judgment by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI stated that demand of interest raised beyond six months is barred by limitation under Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The Tribunal's decision in Collector of Customs, Madras v. T.V.S. Whirlpool Ltd. established a time limit of six months or five years for such cases. The demand for recovery of interest in this case was raised in 2005, without any allegations of fraud, suppression, or misstatement, leading to the appeal being allowed.