TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - A/206/2010-WZB/C-II/EB - Dated:- 30-6-2010 - S/Shri P.C. Chacko, Member (J) and S.K. Gaule, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY: S/Shri A. Hidayatullah, Sr. Advocate, K.A. Photographer, Excise Manager and Ms. Shailaja Kher, Advocate, for the Appellant. Dr. T. Tiju, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - This appeal filed by the assessee is against the demand of interest (not quantified) under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act on the duty amount of Rs. 1,13,94,096.86 covering the period from May 1992 to March 2000. The lower appellate authority ordered for levy of interest on the above amount of duty under Section 11AB ibid. It held so in an appeal of the department filed against order-in-original No. 29 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how-cause notices for invoking Section 11AB. No interest on duty could be levied under Section 11AB unless it could be established that atleast one of the ingredients pre scribed under the Section existed in the particular case on hand. It should be shown that the assessee indulged in collusion, fraud, wilful suppression of facts or the like with intention to evade payment of duty so as to attract the penal interest provided under Section 11AB. It is submitted that none of these ingredients was even alleged in any of the show-cause notices and, therefore, the department was not entitled to levy interest on duty under Section 11AB. The learned Counsel has contextually referred to the amendment made to Section 11AB on 11-5-2001. The Finance A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount of duty evaded was compulsorily payable even though the evasion of duty was not mala fide or intentional. It is pointed out that a Special Leave Petition filed by the party against the High Court's decision was allowed but, in the Civil Appeal, no interim stay was granted and, therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court has to be followed as a precedent. The learned SDR has also claimed support from Commissioner of Trade Tax, Lucknow v. Kanhai Ram Thekedar - 2005 (185) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) wherein, in the context of dealing with an assessment order issued under Section 8 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, it was held that the liability to pay interest accrued automatically. Certain other decisions, wherein different aspects of Section 11AB o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on duty, they did not allege any of the requisite ingredients of the Section. Collusion, fraud, wilful mis-statement/suppression of facts etc. are expressions conspicuously absent in these show-cause notices. There is no whisper of any intention to evade payment of duty, either. Therefore, it is not open to the Revenue to insist that the assessee should pay interest on duty under Section 11AB in respect of any amount of duty paid by them for, any part of the period of dispute. We have also found that the amended provisions of Section 11AB(1) are not applicable to this case 6. The decisions cited by the learned SDR are not on the point under consideration. Me ha?, heavily harped on the High Court's judgment. In that case, their Lordships ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
