9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 2nd and the 3rd respondent dated 25th April 1997 and 19th March 1999. 2. It is common ground that the petitioner No.1 is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The petitioners challenge an order of attachment dated 25th April 1997 and a further order dated 19th March 1999 which orders are passed by respondent nos. 2 and 3, respectively, to this Writ Petition. 3. The petitioners do not dispute that they had filed a Writ Petition in the High Court at Delhi challenging the levying of additional duty of excise on fabrics under the Additional Duty of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. It was submitted that the goods (fabrics) were liable to be exempted from payment of this duty under a Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand for duty was confirmed, however, that order records that the petitioners have paid the amount and they were directed only to pay penalty of Rs. 10,000/. Even that penalty has been paid. 4. The argument before us is that now the petitioners were called upon by the Range Superintendent to pay interest allegedly payable under Section 11AA amounting to Rs. 5,98,025.66/. The petitioners pointed out that on receipt of the communication from the Range Superintendent, entire sum of duty was paid. Once that was paid, Section 11AA has no application and to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. That stand having been negatived and the attachment order resulting from the non-payment of interest as well, that this Writ Petition has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nths from the date of determination. Therefore, none of the ingredients of Section 11AA are attracted. Hence, the Section is inapplicable. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Bangur appearing on behalf of the Revenue would invite our attention to the affidavit filed in reply to submit that it is incorrect that the amount was paid dehors the determination. It is clear that the determination that is contemplated by Section 11A and Section 11AA is not by the order of 4th September 1997. That order is mere confirmation of the duty liability. The duty liability had been declared and determined earlier. The duty was not paid and instead, recourse was taken to legal proceedings by filing Writ Petition in the High Court at Delhi. Even that Writ Petition sto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 subsection (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 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 reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... larger period of limitation and as provided by law. Whatever may be the case, eventually, if a representation is made by a person against whom a notice under Section 11A(1) is served, the Central Excise Officer can determine the amount of duty of excise due from such person to whom notice is issued and thereupon, he shall pay the amount so determined. It is that amount, which is determined but not paid within three months from the date of such determination, which attracts interest under Section 11AA. In the present case, the petitioners had challenged the duty, namely, the 'additional duty of excise' on the goods of special importance contemplated by the Act, namely, the Additional Duty of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a case where duty came to be determined even when there was a legal proceeding pending in the Delhi High Court with an interim order in favour of the petitioners. After the dismissal of that Writ Petition before Delhi High Court, the demand was made, but straightaway of interest. We are not concerned with that amount because for recovery of that amount of interest Section 11AA was not invoked and rightly. Section 11AA could have been invoked only when the sum determined under Subsection (2) of Section 11A has not been paid within three months from the date of the determination. Once this is not the case, then, interest as claimed and by taking recourse to the above provision, was not recoverable. The notice dated 15th January 1997 in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
