New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (9) TMI 1178 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

2016 (9) TMI 1178 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT - 2017 (347) E.L.T. 225 (P & H) - Demand of interest - Whether the interest is chargeable from the date of original adjudication order or from the date of issuance of the adjudication orders in de-novo proceedings, once the demand of duty was upheld by the Tribunal but only the quantum of duty was ordered to be re-adjudicated in de-novo proceedings - Held that:- Section 11AA of the Act provides that if an assessee fails to pay duty within three m .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ned order had lost its significance and it is only the order passed after remand, which would be applicable and enforceable. Once in terms of the order passed by the adjudicating authority after remand by the Tribunal, there is no delay in deposit of duty by the respondent in view of Section 11AA of the Act, the demand of interest is not justifiable. - Decided against the Revenue - Central Excise Appeal No. 10 of 2016 (O&M) - Dated:- 27-9-2016 - MR. RAJESH BINDAL AND MR. DARSHAN SINGH, JJ. 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

for calculation of interest would be the date on which an amount of duty is first determined to be payable as per the Explanation 1 to Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as existing during the relevant period ? (ii) Whether reduction in the amount of duty, whether made by the Tribunal itself or by the Original Adjudicating Authority on the directions of Tribunal, will affect the date of first determination of duty, but would only affect the quantum of duty payable by the party and th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the facts and circumstances of the present case? 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that while adjudicating the show cause notices issued to the respondent, vide Order-in-Original dated 30.9.1999, demand of ₹ 2,38,50,008/- was confirmed. The respondent preferred appeal before the Tribunal, however, during interregnum, the duty was deposited. The Tribunal, vide order dated 16.10.2003, remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority. Another set of show cause notices we .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l Excise Commissionerate, Ludhiana (for short, 'the Commissioner'), levied interest on delayed payment of the duty for the period from the dates when first Orders-in-Original were passed on 7.10.1998 and 30.9.1999, till its payment. The Tribunal has wrongly set aside the demand of interest placing reliance upon an earlier order passed by the Tribunal in Aeon's Construction Products Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chennai, 2007 (215) ELT 464. The submission is that the aforesaid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and not from a subsequent date. Period of three months is provided therefrom. In the case in hand, the fact that duty was payable is not even disputed by the respondent, as the same was paid before even the cases were decided after remand. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal, as Section 11AA of the Act provides for three months' time to pay the amount of demand raised. In the case in hand, there w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the duty was not paid initially by the respondent, as there was a judgment of Patna High Court in its favour, as reported in Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. v. Collector of C. Ex., Patna, 2000 (122) ELT 343 (Pat.). After Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. v. Collr. of C. Ex., Vadodara, 2001 (128) ELT 13 (SC) opined that duty was payable, the same was deposited without even waiting for the out-come of appeal filed by the respondent. The bonafides are we .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ld be passed. There cannot be two enforceable orders for the same period passed in pursuance to the same show cause notices. In support of the plea, reliance was placed upon Blue Star Limited v. Union of India, 2010 (250) ELT 179 (Bom.) and Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai- II v. Lucas TVS Ltd., 2016 (333) ELT 259 (Mad.). 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 6. The undisputed facts are that in the Orders-in-Original passed initially on 30.9.1999 and 7.10.19 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

39;s case (supra) opined that duty on the transaction was leviable, the same was paid by the respondent before even the matters were decided by the Tribunal though that issue had been raised there. When the matters came up for consideration before the Tribunal, the respondent fairly did not dispute the fact that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co.'s case (supra), the duty was payable, however, there being other errors in the orde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

90,03,543/- and ₹ 2,31,12,248/- against ₹ 97,57,049.63 and ₹ 2,38,50,008/-, respectively. Thereafter, vide order dated 31.3.2008, the adjudicating authority directed the respondent to pay interest on the amount of duty from the dates the orders were passed in the first round of litigation till the amount was paid. The order was set aside by the Tribunal while relying upon its earlier order passed in Aeon's Construction Products Ltd.'s case (supra). 7. Section 11AA of 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

xed 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 11A 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal or, as the case may be, the Court, the date of such determination shall be,- (a) for the amount of duty first determined to be payable, the date on which the duty is so determined; (b) for the amount of increased duty, the date of order by which the increased amount of duty is first determined to be payable; (c) for the amount of further increase of duty, the date of order on which the duty is so further increased. (2) The provisions o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

thority. Rather, it is a case where the Tribunal finding merit in the contention raised by the respondent remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh determination of the amount of duty payable, which necessarily means that the impugned order had lost its significance and it is only the order passed after remand, which would be applicable and enforceable. Once in terms of the order passed by the adjudicating authority after remand by the Tribunal, there is no delay in deposi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

date of determination of reduction shall be date on which the amount of duty is first determined to be payable. In other words interest would be payable on the duty as reduced not from the date of such reduction of duty but from the date of the first order. That is because even if the duty is reduced there is still an order of determination but a reduced amount. By Explanation 2 where duty payable is increased or further increased two situations are set out. For the amount of duty first determi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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