TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e tax liability of the Assessee was pertaining to the periods, 01.01.1994 to 31.01.1994 and 01.07.1994 to 30.12.1994, and that the amount of duty payable was remaining undetermined till the Order-in-Original was confirmed by the Order-in-Appeal, dated 26.12.2000 (which was communicated later) and that within three months, as the duty has been paid by the assessee, the question of payment of interest does not arise. The demand made for interest for the period from 26.08.1995 to 31.03.2001 has been rightly rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) and as well as by the CESTAT, Chennai, is perfectly valid and is in accordance with the judgment rendered in Blue Star Limited's case [2009 (10) TMI 257 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Decided against the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he letter in Proceedings No.C.No.V/85/15/12/94-T-1, dated 10.02.1995. 2.1. Against the above Order-in-Original No.7/95, dated 09.01.1995, the respondent herein appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals), vide his Order-in-Appeal (O-in-A) No.128 and 129 of 1995 (M), dated 20.06.1995, set-aside the Order-in-Original No.7 of 1995, dated 09.01.1995 and confirmed the classification of the said goods under T.S.H.No.8501.00. 2.2. As against the above order, the appellant / Revenue filed an Appeal before the CESTAT, Chennai. The CESTAT, vide its Order Nos.395 and 396/1997, dated 27.01.1997, remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals), vide his Order-in-Appeal (O-in-A) Nos.148 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal No.189 of 2002 (M-11), dated 20.12.2002, the Revenue had filed an appeal before the CESTAT. The CESTAT, in its final Order No.1899 of 2009, dated 09.12.2009, had relied upon an order of the Bombay High Court, in the case of Blue Star Limited v. Union of India and others, reported in 2009-TIOL-HC-MUM : 2010 (250) E.L.T. 179 (Bom.) and upheld the impugned order and rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue. Challenging the same, this Appeal has been filed by the appellant / Revenue. 3. At the time of admission of this Appeal, this Court had framed the following substantial questions of law:- 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, is it not the demand of interest on duty confirmed under Section 11AA of the Central Excise A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing thirty-six per cent, per annum, as is for the time being fixed by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette on such duty from the date immediately after the expiry of the said period of three months till the date of payment of such duty: Provided that where a person chargeable with duty determined under sub-section (2) of section 11-A before the date on which the Finance Bill, 1995 receives the assent of the President, fails to pay such duty within three months, from such date, then, such person shall be liable to pay interest under this section from the date immediately after three months from such date, till the date of payment of such duty. Explanation 1.-- Where the duty determined to be payable is r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Blue Star Limited's case, cited supra, where-under, it has been held as follows:- 17. What is the effect of setting aside the original order and remanding the matter for denovo consideration. Setting aside an order would mean that there is no order and a party is relegated to fresh adjudication. The stage of an adjudication cannot be said to be a determination. An adjudication will culminate in an order. That order would be the determination and/or ascertainment of duty. The relevant date for commencement of time, the interest would be from the date the duty is determined if not paid within three months. Once there be an order, setting aside the entire order of determination there is no ascertained duty payable. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.07.1994 to 30.12.1994, and that the amount of duty payable was remaining undetermined till the Order-in-Original was confirmed by the Order-in-Appeal, dated 26.12.2000 (which was communicated later) and that within three months, as the duty has been paid by the assessee, the question of payment of interest does not arise. 9. We find no reason to differ with the contention of the learned counsel for the Assessee. 10. The contention of the Revenue is that the order determining the liability, once passed drags the liability back to the date of actual liability and therefore, interest is payable from 09.01.1995. 10.1. The demand made for interest for the period from 26.08.1995 to 31.03.2001 has been rightly rejected by the Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
