9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iron and steel. On 8-2-2002, the assessee intimated the debit of differential duty on sale of goods through consignment agents being the amount of Rs. 8,57,935/- for the period from 1-4-2000 to 31-3-2004 and Rs. 7,58,163/- for the period from 1-4-2001 to 31-1-2002. However, the interest accrued on these amounts was not paid. The respondent was, therefore, asked to pay the amount of interest under Section 11AB along with the differential duty. A show cause notice came to be issued on 5-8-2003, requiring the respondent to explain as to why the differential duty should not be demanded and interest amounts on late payment should not be recovered under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, with a proposal to impose penalty under Rule 25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... removals. He submitted that the period of limitation of one year applicable for issuing show cause notices under Section 11A for duty and penalty did not apply to the notices of recovery of interest issued under Section 11AB. It was pointed out that in the show cause notice interest was specifically demanded with reference to the provisions of Section 11AB and therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) committed an error in applying the fixed period of limitation of one year to the recovery of interest under Section 11AB. 5. No one has appeared for the respondent despite service of the notice of the date of hearing. 6. Admittedly, a statement dated 8-2-2000 was filed by the respondent intimating debit of differential duty of Rs. 8,5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty, if any, as may be determined by the Central Excise Officer, but for this sub-section". Under sub-section (2B) of Section 11A, the person chargeable with duty could pay the amount of duty before service of notice on him under an intimation in writing to the Central Excise Officer. Therefore, even in cases where duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid, the person chargeable with the duty would make such payment and as per explanation 2 to sub-section (2B) of Section 11A, interest under Section 11AB was payable on the amount of duty paid by such person. Sub-section (2B) was inserted by Section 23 of the Finance Act, 2001 with effect from 11-5-2001. Therefore, from 11-5-2001 the liability to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 11AB, nor is there any period of limitation prescribed for exercising the power to recover the sums due to the Government under Section 11 of the Act. Therefore, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was clearly wrong in law when he set aside the interest liability of the respondent for the period from July, 2001 to June, 2002, which period was governed by the amended provisions of sub-section (2B), read with explanation 2 thereto, of Section 11A, which was brought into force with effect from 11-5-2001. Therefore, the demand of interest amount of Rs. 1,37,095/- for the said period from July, 2001 to June, 2002 is required to be confirmed and the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside to that extent, and the order-in-ori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
