9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. JUDGMENT This appeal is by the revenue challenging the order passed by the Tribunal which had interfered with the order passed by the assessing authority as well as the first appellate authority holding that the rebate claimed cannot be adjusted to the claims of the Department. 2. M/s. Stella Rubber Works (Unit II) the assessee is in the business of manufacture of tread rubber. On gathering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not acceded to by the Department. The assessee paid two instalments on their own 1-12-2003 a penalty of 75,000/-, and on 31-12 2003, duty of Rs. 7,46,616.98/-. While rejecting their request for payment of arrears of instalments they were intimated that the delay in payment of arrears would result in their liability to pay interest under Section 11-AA of the Act. They did not pay the interest. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue contended that by virtue of Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the revenue was empowered to adjust the amounts due to the revenue by way of interest out of the amount due by the Department to the assessee by way of rebate. Therefore, the Tribunal committed a serious error in interfering with the said order of adjustment and therefore he submits that the impugned order requires to be i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovision does not help the revenue. Apart from the said provision, the learned counsel was not able to point out any other provision which enables the revenue to adjust the amounts due to them as against the amounts due by them to the assessee. In fact reliance is placed on the Judgments of CESTAT which gives an impression that adjustment is permissible. Such adjustment is not based on any statutor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
