TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 913X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said provisions, there is no procedure for filing the abatement claim and same cannot be utilized without prior sanction of the departmental officers. The amount of abatement is not in dispute when the respondent applied for adjustment on 2-2-2011 the claim of abatement if at all required by the revenue to be sanctioned the same was to be sanctioned immediately but same has not been done. Moreover, when there is a short payment of duty for the month of February, 2011, no show cause notice for demand of duty has been issued to the respondent. Therefore, demand of interest is not sustainable. - Admittedly, in this case the fact of adjustment of abetment amount to duty against the duty liability for the month of February, 2011 was in the kno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abatement was ₹ 5,22,58,065/-. The respondent requested for de-sealing and installation of 90 FFS machines of single track of MRP ₹ 1 intended to be used for production from 1-2-2011 and same was done. As per Rule 97 of the said rules the respondent was required to pay duty amounting to ₹ 11,25,00,000/- by 5-2-2011 for the month of February, 2011. The Respondent intimated to the Revenue on 2-2-2011 that they will utilize the amount of duty of ₹ 5,22,58,065/- of abatement of excess duty paid during January, 2011 towards duty payable for the month of February, 2011. It was also further requested for adjustment of abatement with the duty payable for the month of February, 2011. The amount of abatement was sanctioned on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of February, 2011 the respondent shall adjust the amount of abatement in duty liability for the month of February, 2011. Further, it is submitted that if there is a shortage of duty for the month of February, 2011 no notice of demand has been issued to the respondent. Consequently, demand of interest is not sustainable. It is further submitted that the demand of interest is barred by limitation also. 5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 6. In this case short issue is that whether the respondent is entitled to adjust the abated amount in their duty liability for the month of February, 2011 or not. The adjustment of abated amount against the duty liability for the month of February, 2011 was intimated by the respondent to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mittedly, in this case the fact of adjustment of abetment amount to duty against the duty liability for the month of February, 2011 was in the knowledge of the department. Therefore, show cause notice cannot be issued by invoking extended period of limitation. Admittedly, in this case show cause notice has been issued by invoking extended period of limitation. Further, the ld. Commissioner (A) has examined the issue in detail and observed that the show cause notice has been issued to demand the interest and there is no demand for sanction of duty. It means that department has expected the payment of duty by way of suo motu adjustment of excess duty has been paid by the respondent which is to be deposited with the department in January, 2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
