TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... done - in case of appellant itself, in G M (Telecom), BSNL Vs CCE Chandigarh [2003 (6) TMI 6 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], the Tribunal has held that appellant being Central Government Department, interest liability cannot be pertained. The case is hand, the appellant cannot be burdened with interest liability as the short payment of duty was made good immediately - appeal allowed - decided in favor o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... members and on 27.12.2017, when the matter was listed before the bench, the bench ordered that matter be listed before this bench who heard the matter on 09.10.2017. Hence, the matter is taken up for disposal today. 4. On hearing both the sides, I find that the issue involved in this case is regarding demand of interest from the appellant who is a Government of India undertaking. From the reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground that the demand of interest is hit by limitation and the confirmation of the interest is incorrect. The First Appellate Authority did not agree with the contentions raised and confirmed the demand with interest by recording that Provisions of Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 is mandatory and the appellant is liable to pay interest on the such short payment. 5. On careful consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levant period in question, which would mean that there was no suppression of the fact but due to a human error, the short payment of tax was done. I find that the ratio of the decision of the Bench in the case of Kohler India Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Bharuch - 2017 (9) TMI 1053 - CESTAT Ahmedabad would cover the issue in favour of the appellant. I also notice that in case of appellant itse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
