Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post an Article
Post a New Article
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles

Back

All Articles

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
Sort By:
Relevance Date

Interest liability in case of Confirmed Demand - relevant date for calculation of interest

Surender Gupta
Interest Liability Under Section 11AA: Interest Not Justifiable Without Delay After Duty Remand for Re-adjudication The article discusses the liability for interest under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in cases where the demand for duty is confirmed but requires re-adjudication. It examines whether interest should be charged from the date of the original adjudication order or from the date of new orders following de-novo proceedings. The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that interest is not justifiable if there is no delay in duty deposit following a remand for fresh determination. This decision aligns with previous rulings by the Bombay and Madras High Courts. (AI Summary)

Whether the interest is chargeable from the date of original adjudication order or from the date of issuance of the adjudication orders in de-novo proceedings, once the demand of duty was upheld by the Tribunal but only the quantum of duty was ordered to be re-adjudicated in de-novo proceedings?

Scope of Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944

Section 11AA of the Act provides that if an assessee fails to pay duty within three months from the date of determination, he is liable to pay interest thereafter. Explanation 1 and 2 thereof will not be applicable in the present case as in the case in hand the duty determined has not been reduced or increased by the appellate authority. Rather, it is a case where the Tribunal finding merit in the contention raised by the respondent remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh determination of the amount of duty payable, which necessarily means that the impugned order had lost its significance and it is only the order passed after remand, which would be applicable and enforceable.  

Punjab and Haryana High Court in the this case [2016 (9) TMI 1178 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] followed the decisions in the cases of  Blue Star Limited v. Union of India, 2009 (10) TMI 257 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai- II v. Lucas TVS Ltd., 2016 (1) TMI 479 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ; and held that:

Once in terms of the order passed by the adjudicating authority after remand by the Tribunal, there is no delay in deposit of duty by the respondent in view of Section 11AA of the Act, the demand of interest is not justifiable.

 

See:- Commissioner, Central Excise, Ludhiana Versus M/s National Fertilizers Limited - 2016 (9) TMI 1178 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
 

answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Articles