9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... air The present appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby he dismissed the appeal of the appellant. The appellant's were issued letters dated 18/19.07.2005 and 11.08.2005 by the Jt. Commissioner/ Additional Commissioner, Central Excise Recovery, Mumbai I Commissionerate. These letters communicated, the certificate issued under Section 142 for recovery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfirmed demand. The letters are nothing but a part of recovery procedure, therefore the same is not appealable. The action of Section 142 of Customs Act, 1962 which is applicable to central excise cases also are only procedure for recovery of the confirmed dues. Unless and until the main demand is either set aside or annulled, the recovery is inevitable. Therefore these letters cannot be consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt has to pay the dues and after the demand attained finality, the only option for the appellant is to pay the dues. The appellant also disputed the demand of interest. In our view, once the demand of duty is confirmed, there is a statutory provision for recovery of interest on the confirmed demand in terms of Section 11AA/ 11AB then interest is unavoidably payable. Even for recovery of interest, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with interest becomes unchallengeable. Letter of Commissioner (Appeals) holding notice issued of interest neither being appealable nor speaking order hence the same was set aside. The above decision of this Tribunal, the facts are absolutely identical to the facts of the present case. Therefore, following ratio of the above decision, the appeal is not sustainable. We therefore uphold the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
