TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sition of penalty in the SCN. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Kwality Ice Cream Company Vs. UOI [2012 (1) TMI 88 - Delhi High Court] that the period of limitation that applies to a claim for the principal amount should also apply to the claim of interest thereon. In this case too, the extended period has not been invoked in the SCN and the entire demand is beyond the period of limitation - demand of interest not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/1471/2012 - A/61538/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 17-4-2017 - Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Sh. Amrinder Singh, Advocate for the Appellant(s) Sh. Satyapal, AR for the Respondent(s) ORDER Per : Devender Singh The appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Ltd. - 2015 (322) ELT 269 (P H). 2. Kwality Ice Cream Company Vs UOI - 2012 (281) ELT 507 (Del.). 3. Jai Bharat Maruti Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2014 (307) ELT 282 (P H). 4. Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2013 (297) ELT 332 (Del.). 4. The Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings in the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and pointed out that since it was a case of delayed payment of the duty, the interest was payable by the appellant. 5. Heard the parties and perused the records. 6. I find that the Department has issued a show cause notice dt. 13.08.2010 for interest on the differential duty paid voluntarily by the appellant on their own. Differential duty was paid on 10.07.2007. The show cause not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apply to the claim for interest thereon. We find no merit in the appeals and they are dismissed with costs. 5. It is, therefore, clear that the principle adopted by the Supreme Court was that the period of limitation, unless otherwise stipulated by the statute, which applies to a claim for the principal amount should also apply to the claim for interest thereon. If that be the position, the period of limitation prescribed for demand of duty under Section 11A is normally one year and, in exceptional circumstance of a case falling under the proviso to Section 11A(1), the period of limitation is five years. But that would be applicable only in case of misstatement, fraud, concealment etc., which is not the case here. As such, in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 507 (Del.)] has also held that period of limitation, unless otherwise stipulated by the statute, which applies to a claim for the principal amount should also apply to the claim for interest thereon. In this case too, the extended period has not been invoked in the show cause notice and the entire demand is beyond the period of limitation. Hence, the demand of interest confirmed vide impugned order is not sustainable. In the absence of demand, the penalty also has to be set aside. 8. Since the demand is clearly not sustainable on the ground of limitation, I am not going into the merits of the case. 9. In view of the foregoing, the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is liable to be set aside and the same is set aside. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
