TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 813X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfirmed issue and imposed penalty – Respondents thereafter preferred appeal before tribunal which is allowed by impugned order – Held that:- Demand for interest pertains to dues which were paid on various dates – Clearly seen that there is delay of more than three years from date on which first cause of action arose and more than two years from date on which last cause of action arose – Said dela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent Appeal are as under : It was found in the audit that during the period 2001-02 the Respondent had warehoused the goods beyond the period as provided under sub-section (2)(ii) of Section 61 of the Customs Act, 1962. As such, show cause notice came to be issued to the Respondent On 19th October, 2005 calling upon it to show cause as to why interest amounting ₹ 10,80,331/- should not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in holding that the show cause notices were beyond limitation. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the question of law as to whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the show cause notices issued were beyond limitation, in the absence of any provision to the effect, Section 61 of the said Act arises for consideration in the present Appeal. 5. We have perused the impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 515 (SC). The Apex Court in the said case has in unequivocal terms held that when there is an inordinate delay in issuance of notice of demand, it would be open to the assessee to contend that it is bad in law on the ground of delay. The judgment of the Madras CESTAT in the said case was challenged before the Apex Court and the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner v. TVS Whirlpool Limited [2000( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
