TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he interest. This letter cannot be construed as demand of interest. I further find that SCN No.4/98 dt.2.3.98 was issued wherein the appellants have been asked to show cause before Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise as to why Central Excise duty of ₹ 3,68,850/- should not be demanded as per Section 11A of Central Excise Act with appropriate interest as per the provisions of Section 11AA of the said Act. - Since the SCN itself raises demand of Central Excise duty under Section 11A along with interest, there is no question of any further demand of interest. The Superintendent only quantified the interest as per the adjudication order. - Decided against assessee. - Appeal Nos. E/737 to 739/2005 - Final Order No.40647-40649/2015 - Date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal's final order and remanded the matter to Tribunal with a direction to pass suitable orders on merit. Accordingly, the appeals were restored. 3. Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has not passed detailed order but dismissed the appeals on the ground that the appellants have not filed appeal against OIO whereas the appellant filed appeal against letter of Superintendent and also dismissed on merits. He further submits that interest cannot be demanded beyond the time limit of one year whereas the Superintendent letter dated 1.7.2005 demanded interest. He relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax Vs Kanhai Ram Thekedar 2005 (185) ELT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Central Excise as to why Central Excise duty of ₹ 3,68,850/- should not be demanded as per Section 11A of Central Excise Act with appropriate interest as per the provisions of Section 11AA of the said Act. Since the SCN itself raises demand of Central Excise duty under Section 11A along with interest, there is no question of any further demand of interest. The Superintendent only quantified the interest as per the adjudication order. Appellant's reliance on Commissioner of Trade Tax Vs Kanhai Ram Thekedar 2005 (185) ELT 3 (S.C) is not applicable to the present case as it is distinguishable as in the above case, demand of interest was raised by invoking extended period whereas in the present case, duty and interest has been dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded, the person, who is liable to pay duty as determined under sub-section (2) or has paid the duty under sub-section (2B) of Section 11A, shall in addition to the duty be liable to pay interest at such rate ........ The terminal part in the quotation above, which is couched with the words shall and be liable clearly indicates that there is no option. As discussed earlier, this is a civil liability of the assessee, who has retained the amount of public exchequer with himself and which ought to have gone in the pockets of the Central Government much earlier. Upon reading Section 11AB together with Sections 11A and 11AA, we are of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
