TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 640X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt necessary for invoking extended period of limitation has been invoked in the said notice thus the notice is clearly barred by limitation. Appeal allowed. - Appeal No. E/530/08 - - - Dated:- 11-1-2018 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial ) And Shri Raju, Member ( Technical ) Shri M. H. Patil, Advocte for Appellant Shri N. N. Prabhudesai, Superintendent (A.R) for respondent ORDER Per : Raju This appeal has been filed by M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. against demand of interest on duty payable on transit/storage loss. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that they are engaged in manufacture of various petroleum products/organic chemicals and were removing the finished petroleum products witho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng month of clearance. He argued that the instruction received by Revenue or binding on them. 2.1. Ld. Counsel further argued that interest is not applicable under Rule 20 of the Central Excise Rules also. He pointed out that as per para 3(a) of the CBEC Circular No. 579/16/2001-CX dt. 26.6.2001 is this warehousing certificate is not received within 90 days of the removal or such extended period as the Commissioner may allow, the consignor shall pay appropriate duty leviable on such goods. He argued that in terms of above instruction as well the liability of interest would start only after expiry of 90 days from the date of removal of these goods to warehouse. 2.2. Ld. Counsel further pointed out that originally show cause notice was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstances the no penalty can be imposed. 3. Ld. AR for the Revenue argued that the goods removed warehouse and hence the duty was correctly demanded. He also relied on the impugned order. 4. We have gone through the rival submissions, we find that the impugned show cause notice was issued on 21.6.2007 demanding interest in respect of duty and due losses in respect of clearances made during April 2001 to December 2003. From the above it is apparent that the demand pertains to a period which is more than the normal period of limitation for raising the demand under Section 11A of the Act. Ld. Counsel relied on the decision of Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. (supra) and Kwality Ice Cream (supra). It is also noticed that Tribunal in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same logic, the period of limitation for demand of interest thereon would be one year. Inasmuch as the demand for interest has been made beyond a period of one year, the demand would be clearly hit by the principle of limitation as laid down by the Supreme Court. Even if, we take the letter dated 25-10-2004 as the first demand of interest, although that letter was in respect of a demand for differential duty, the demand would still be beyond a period of three years. In view of above decision of Hon ble High Court and Hon ble Apex Court. It is apparent that the limitation prescribed under Section 11A of the Act would be applicable to the demand of interest made under Central Excise Rules, 2002. In the instant case the demand has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
