Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Versus JCB India Ltd.

2016 (6) TMI 573 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Chargeability - Interest on duty demanded - payable by retrospective amendment in the Finance Bill 2011 enacted on 8.4.2011 for the period 29.4.2010 to 31.03.2011 which is prior to date of enactment of Finance Act, 2011 - Held that:- when the duty became payable only on 8.4.2011, though it is payable for the period prior to 8.4.2011 the duty is recoverable but interest cannot be demanded for the period prior to 8.4.2011. We find that when the duty itself was not leviable during the period before .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Act, 2011 is not chargeable for the period prior to date of enactment of Finance Act, 2011 i.e. 8.4.2011. As regard the submission of the Ld. AR that against the aforesaid decision the Revenue has filed an appeal in the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, the Ld. A.R. could not produce any stay of operation of the Tribunal s above referred decision, therefore as a judicial discipline, we have no option accept to follow the ratio of the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal. - Decided .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng order : 14.1. I confirm the demand of duty amounting toRs.18,63,57,887/- for the period 29.04.2010 to 31.03.2011 against the assessee, i.e. M/s. JCB India Ltd., Talegaon MIDC, Tal. Maval, Dist.Pune, under the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and order appropriation of the amount of ₹ 18,63,57,887/- already paid by the assessee against the said demand. 14.2. I confirm the demand/recovery of interest amounting to ₹ 13,92,270/- in respect of the delayed paym .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nterest is chargeable on the confirmed demand of duty which became payable by retrospective amendment in the Finance Bill 2011 enacted on 8.4.2011 for the period 29.4.2010 to 31.03.2011 which is prior to date of enactment of Finance Act, 2011. In the adjudication, Ld. Commissioner confirmed the interest liability for the period 8.4.2011 to 31.5.2011. However dropped the interest for the period 29.4.2010 to 31.3.2011. Aggrieved by the said portion of the order, Revenue is before us. 3. Shri V.K. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

till the date of actual payment i.e. 31.5.2011. It is undisputed that as per retrospective effect as per Finance Act, 2011, the duty was levied w.e.f. 29.4.2010. Therefore, since this amount was recoverable under Section 11A, the interest leviable under Section 11AB became effective from the date when the duty was payable. There is no exception provided in the statute for non-levy of interest in the circumstances when any duty is levied by statute which is effective retrospectively. The Ld. A.R. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hen there is a delay in payment of excise duty the interest shall be payable. Therefore in the present case also when the levy of duty was from a particular date and duty was paid at a later date, for the delay in payment of duty, interest shall be applicable. He further submits that as regard the Premier Industries Ltd. decision of this Tribunal the Revenue has filed an appeal before the Hon ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh which is pending. 4. On the other hand, Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Ld. C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

11. The respondent admittedly paid the interest for the period 8.4.2011 till the payment of duty i.e. 31.5.2011, therefore the interest is not demandable for the period prior to 8.4.2011. He submits that the identical issue has been settled by this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Indore Vs. Premier Industries Ltd. 2009 (248) E.L.T. 833 (Tri.-Del.). The submission of the Ld. A.R. that this decision was challenged before the Hon ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh but Revenue c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

prior to 8.4.2011 when the provision of levy of duty though from retrospective effect enacted but prior to 8.4.2011, under any circumstances the duty was not payable for the period prior to 8.4.2011 without the statutory provision which was given retrospective effect under the Finance Act, 2011. Therefore, we are of the clear view that when the duty became payable only on 8.4.2011, though it is payable for the period prior to 8.4.2011 the duty is recoverable but interest cannot be demanded for t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as under: 3. After hearing learned D.R. and on perusal of the records, it is seen that the respondents were engaged in the manufacture of Refined Soya Bean Oil falling under Heading 1503.00 of Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Oil Cake Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur, reported in 2004 (174) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.) held that the process of refining oil does not amount to manufacture. In view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pective effect from the date of enactment of Finance Bill, 2005 (i.e. May, 2005). The respondents became liable to pay duty on clearances during the period 15-12-2004 to 31-3-2005 in view of retrospective amendment of Chapter Note amendment. The Original authority confirmed the demand of duty of ₹ 28,18,153/- alongwith interest under of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the respondents are liable to pay interest from the date of enactment of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

le to pay interest as duty is levied retrospectively. 5. We find that the amendment of Chapter 15 came on 13-5-2005 with retrospective effect. Section 11AB(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, provides that where 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, shall be liable to pay interest. In the present case, duty was levied with retrospective effect consequent upon amendment by Finance Bill, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version