Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (6) TMI 559

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... India Ltd. [2009 (7) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT] by the apex court needs to be acted upon and implemented by this Court. Thus, the question sought to be raised is already conclusively answered and cannot be treated as a substantial question of law at all. Moreover, the appellant made good the short duty only after it was brought to his notice by the respondents - Levy of interest confirmed. - Central Excise Appeal No. 5 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 14-6-2013 - B. P. Dharmadhikari And S. B. Shukre,JJ. For the Petitioner : S. N. Kapoor For the Respondent : Mr. S. K. Mishra, ASGI JUDGMENT (Per B. P. Dharmadhikari, J.) :- Heard parties finally to find out whether question of liability of present appellant to pay interest on differ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ase and said matter are identical. The Department questioned the said judgment of Karnataka High Court in Special Leave Petition and that Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 3.12.2010. The Department thereafter sought review of that order and the Hon'ble Apex Court has found no substance in the Review as per its order dated 17.8.2011. In this situation, according to the learned counsel, reliance by CESTAT on the judgment in the matter of SKF India Ltd. by the Hon'ble Apex Court is misconceived. He submits that the reasons recorded by the Karnataka High Court and accepted by the Hon'ble Apex Court are squarely applicable and ought to have been accepted. He, therefore, submits that the question about the liability of present assessee to p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uation, this Court has stayed the demand for interest. 7. After the dictation commenced and we completed the narration of arguments of learned counsel for the department, Shri Kapoor has produced before us copy of the order 9.10.2007 passed in above W.P. No. 3389/07 which shows that the said writ petition has been admitted for final hearing. 8. We find that in the judgment dated 31.8.2010 delivered in Central Excise Appeal No. 29 of 2004, the goods were cleared under the self removal procedure. In Central Excise Appeal No. 7 of 2011 the Court has dismissed the Appeal in motion hearing and the facts involved therein are also not very clear. The orders impugned in W.P. No. 3389/07 are not challenged in appeal under Section 35(G) of the Ce .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t attracted. 10. The very same judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court is looked into by it later on in International Auto Ltd. In the said judgment in para 8 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under : Section 11A of the Act deals with recovery of duty not levied or not paid or shortlevied or shortpaid. The said section, which stood inserted by Act 25 of 1978, underwent a seachange when Parliament inserted major changes in that section vide Act 14 of 2001 [with effect from 11th May, 2001] and Act 32 of 2003 [with effect from 14th May, 2003]. It needs to be mentioned that simultaneously Act 14 of 2001 also made changes to Section 11 AB of the Act. In the case of S.K.F. India Ltd. [supra], it has been, inter alia, held, as can be seen from th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 11AB of the Act. In our view, with the entire change in the Scheme of recovery of duty under the Act, particularly after insertion of Act 14 of 2001 and Act 32 of 2003, the judgment of this Court in the case of M.R.F. Ltd. [supra] would not apply. That judgment was on interpretation of Section 11B of the Act, which concerns claim for refund of duty by the assessee. That judgment was in the context of price list approved on 14th May, 1983. In that case, assessee had made a claim for refund of excise duty on the differential between the price on the date of removal and the reduced price at which tyres were sold. The price was approved by the Government. In that case, the assessee submitted that its price list was approved by the Government on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates