Discrepancies in Interest Rate Demand Corrected by Bench

The Bench found discrepancies in the interest rate demanded by the Commissioner (Appeals), initially held at 20% but sought by Revenue at 24%. The appellant's cross-objection was not considered, leading to an erroneous dismissal of Revenue's appeal. The Commissioner had not confirmed the interest rate, necessitating a modification of the order. The judgment directed the Registry to list the Cross Objection for hearing to address the appellant's submissions. A factual error in the order dismissing Revenue's appeal regarding the interest rate demanded was corrected to ensure a fair resolution.

---

---

Issues:
1. Discrepancy in interest rate demanded by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Non-consideration of the cross-objection filed by the appellant.
3. Correction required in the order dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses a discrepancy in the interest rate demanded by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Bench initially held that the Commissioner was correct in demanding interest at a rate of 20%, while the Revenue had appealed seeking interest at 24%. The appellant challenged the Commissioner's order by filing a cross-objection, which was not considered. The appellant argued that the Commissioner did not demand interest at 20%, and the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal based on this was erroneous. The Bench, after hearing both sides, found that the Commissioner had not confirmed the interest rate. The Revenue had not filed a ROM application, and the order stating that the interest rate was correctly demanded at 20% needed modification.

2. The issue of non-consideration of the cross-objection filed by the appellant was also addressed in the judgment. The Bench noted that the appellant's cross-objection had not been listed for hearing. Consequently, the Registry was directed to list the Cross Objection for final hearing on a specified date. This decision aimed to ensure that the appellant's submissions were duly considered and addressed in the proceedings.

3. Lastly, the judgment highlighted the need for a correction in the order dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Bench acknowledged that the statement regarding the interest rate demanded by the Commissioner being correct at 20% was a factual error. As the interest had not been confirmed by the Commissioner in the Order-in-Appeal, the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal based on this premise was deemed incorrect. Therefore, the order was modified to rectify this error and ensure a fair and accurate resolution of the appeal.

---