TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st 94 the original authority had confirmed a total demand of duty of Rs. 9,69,638/- against the appellants. The appeal filed by the party against the Order-in-Original was dismissed by the first appellate authority. But the further appeal preferred to this Tribunal partly succeeded. The Tribunal set aside the demand of duty for a part of the period of dispute and directed the original authority for re-quantification of the duty to be recovered from the assessee. This decision was not acceptable to the department. The civil appeals filed by them were allowed by the Supreme Court as per judgment 5-1-2005, whereby the original authority s order was restored. Pursuant to the apex court s judgment, the party paid the entire amount of duty in si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 11AA had come into effect only from 26-5-95, i.e., after the period of dispute (16-3-95 to 31-3-95). Counsel also argued that, if at all Section 11AA was applicable interest on duty was leviable only from the date on which the dispute was finally settled in the Supreme Court. In this connection, he relied on the Tribunal s decision in Mukand Ltd. v. CCE Mumbai, 1996 (88) E.L.T. 725 (Tribunal), wherein it was held that liability to pay interest did not commence until the dispute was finally settled by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal or the Court, as the case may be. 4. On the other hand, learned SDR pointed out that, in the case of Komal Straw Board Mill Board Industries (supra), the Tribunal had ovelooked proviso to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the date on which the Finance Bill, 1995 receives the assent of the President, fails to pay such duty within three months from such date, then, such person shall be liable to pay interest under this section from the date immediately after three months from such date, till the date of payment of such duty. Explanation 1. - Where the duty determined to be payable is reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, the Court, the date of such determination shall be the date on which an amount of duty is first determined to be payable. Explanation 2. - Where the duty determined to be payable is increased or further increased by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, the Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here would have been no liability to pay interest. On account of their default, the appellants became liable to pay interest on the duty amount from 26-8-95 to date of payment in terms of the said proviso. The view taken by the Commissioner in the impugned letter is perfectly in accordance with the legal provisions. As rightly pointed out by learned SDR, the facts of this case are similar to those of Fine Automotive Inds. Radiators (supra), wherein the assessee was held liable to pay interest on duty for the period from 26-8-95 to the date of payment of duty. 6. Learned counsel relied on sub-section (2) of Section 11AA for considering that the provisions of sub-section (1) were not applicable to his case. Sub-section (2) referred to by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
