TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scharged their duty liability on 13.05.2005. The argument on behalf of the Revenue that as the liability to pay duty is made retrospective, the respondents are liable to pay interest from 1.3.2003 onwards does not appear to be attractive. The liability to pay interest arises only when the amount becomes due. The amount falls due only after the insertion of the amendment. The respondents discharged their liability within the time limit. Though the product is made dutiable w.e.f. 1.3.2003, there was no liability to pay duty on that date, as the amendment occurred only on 28.02.2005. In our considered opinion, in the present case, there is no liability to pay interest. Also see Pushti Refineries (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Bangalore [2014 (10) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e duty liability held that respondents are not liable to pay interest. The Revenue has filed this appeal challenging the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that respondents are not liable to pay interest. 3. It is the case of the Revenue that Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 15 of CETA, 1985 was inserted on 28.02.2005 giving retrospective effect from 1.3.2003. The appellants paid the duty vide challan dated 13.05.2005, but did not pay the interest. That as the product was made dutiable retrospectively w.e.f. 2003, the appellants are liable to pay the interest from 1.3.2003 till the date of payment of duty. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant supported the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the duty was paid within the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to pay interest from 1.3.2003 onwards. This argument of the Revenue does not appear to be attractive. The liability to pay interest arises only when the amount becomes due. The amount falls due only after the insertion of the amendment. The respondents discharged their liability within the time limit. Though the product is made dutiable w.e.f. 1.3.2003, there was no liability to pay duty on that date, as the amendment occurred only on 28.02.2005. In our considered opinion, in the present case, there is no liability to pay interest. 8. Further in the case of Pushti Refineries (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE ST, Bangalore - 2004 (302) ELT 319 (Tribunal-Bangalore) a similar issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal wherein it was held that lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
