TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 915X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... US COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOLPUR [ 2023 (6) TMI 1102 - CESTAT KOLKATA] wherein it has been held that we hold that it is the revenue neutral situation, no duty is payable by the appellant therefore whatever duty paid by the appellant Cenvat credit of the same has been availed by the sister unit, question of payment of interest does not arise. Thus, no interest is payable by the appellant as it is a revenue neutral situation. Accordingly, the demand of interest is set aside - appeal allowed. - HON BLE MR.ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And HON BLE MR.K.ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Rahul Tangri and Ms.Udita Saraf, both Advocates for the Appellant Shri K.Chowdhury, Authorised Representative for the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, the appellant filed this appeal before this Tribunal. 2.5 In the meantime, in terms of the Honb le Supreme Court s order in the two cases of ONGC v Collector, reported at 1992 (61) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) and 1994 (70) E.L.T. 45 (S.C.), the appellant applied for clearance from Committee of Disputes, to litigate the matter. The Committee of Disputes, after hearing both the appellant as well as the respondent, resolved the matter by directing the appellant to litigate only the penalty portion since the demand was revenue neutral. 2.6 Therefore, this Tribunal vide Order No. S-519/A-1148/Kol/07 dated 11.06.2007 dismissed the appeal to the extent of duty demand and interest for want of clearance from Committee of Disputes. However, penalty imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue submits that although there is a situation of revenue neutral, but they are required to pay interest for the intervening period as held by this Tribunal in the case of Essar Steel Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur reported in 2016 (341) ELT 145 (Tri.-Del.). 6. Heard both sides and considered the submissions. 7. The short issue involved in this case is to be decided whether interest is payable on the demand of Central Excise duty, which has been held to be revenue neutral or not ? 8. The ld.A.R. for the Revenue relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Essar Steel Limited (supra), wherein we find that the issue has been decided by the Tribunal is whether there is revenue neutral situation in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the present case as in that case the appellant sought refund of interest paid on Service Tax which was not payable by the assessee. 16. In view of the above discussion, we hold that it is the revenue neutral situation, no duty is payable by the appellant therefore whatever duty paid by the appellant Cenvat credit of the same has been availed by the sister unit, question of payment of interest does not arise. In view of the above discussion, the appeals mentioned at Sl.No.2-12 are also allowed by setting aside the impugned orders. In the result, all the appeals are allowed with consequential relief. 11. Therefore, we hold that no interest is payable by the appellant as it is a revenue neutral situation. Accordingly, the demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the entire basis of prescribing the mechanism of Committee of Dispute has been wrongly understood by the Department in the present proceedings. It is his submission that once matter goes before the Committee of Dispute, the operation of the order under challenge got suspended. Further, for the purpose of going before the Committee of Dispute is not merely for the appellant to get approval or rejection regarding its right to file appeal. The purpose is also the resolution by effective conciliation of dispute between the PSUs and the Union of India, represented by Ministries or their agencies. Such resolution wherein the Committee of Disputes does not require the matter to be litigated, does not necessarily means confirmation of demand agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e neutral, the same ought not to have been recovered by the Revenue, which was heard and was a party to the conciliation process before the COD. It is incorrect on the part of the Revenue to contend that the adjudication order attained finality was far as the demand is confirmed inasmuch as such order has to be subject to the conciliation arrived at by the COD, which unequivocally held the demand to be revenue neutral. There is no direction in the said order regarding the confirmation of the demand or for the appellant to pay. Therefore, the recovery affected is against the terms of conciliation before the COD and cannot be said to be in conformity to the adjudication order and such adjudication order cannot be said to be final as regards t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
