9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of recovery of an amount of Rs.30,016/- demanded from them as interest due for delayed payment of duty under Section 11AB and penalty of Rs.1,000/- imposed under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The applicant is engaged in the manufacture of transformers and supplies them to Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) against contract entered into with them. The contract with the buyer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of judicature of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Vs M/s. Rucha Engineering Pvt. Ltd decided on 3.4.2007 [2008 (223) E.L.T. 161 (Bom.)], in support of the claim that the impugned demand is not sustainable. 2. The learned SDR submits that duty is payable on excisable goods cleared by any assessee on the date of clearance. In the instant case, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; The apex court read the above provisions and ruled that levy of interest was in the nature of compensation as the Revenue was deprived of the benefit of tax for the period during which it had remained unpaid. 3. I have considered the rival submissions. In the judgment of the Bombay High Court relied on by both sides, the Hon'ble High Court decided that the differential du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is reproduced below:- "………..there is nothing to indicate that there was any time-gap between the date on which the revised rates applicable with retrospective effect were learnt by the Assessee and the date on which differential duty was paid. Had that been the case, the levy of interest as under Section 11AB could have been considered because of delayed payment of duty, but this is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
