TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether an adjudicating authority could, by an addendum issued after remand, confirm an interest demand that was not part of the original adjudication; and (ii) whether interest could be charged in the absence of any provision in Notification No. 16/2000-Cus., Sl. No. 320/C.
Issue (i): whether an adjudicating authority could, by an addendum issued after remand, confirm an interest demand that was not part of the original adjudication.
Analysis: The remand required the matter to be examined only within the limits of the remand directions. The original adjudication had not dealt with interest, and the subsequent addendum sought to introduce a fresh demand after the authority had already exhausted its jurisdiction on that aspect. Such an exercise amounts to travelling beyond the remand and is not sustainable.
Conclusion: The addendum confirming interest was invalid and could not be sustained.
Issue (ii): whether interest could be charged in the absence of any provision in Notification No. 16/2000-Cus., Sl. No. 320/C.
Analysis: Interest liability must rest on an express enabling provision. Where the notification governing the exemption or benefit does not provide for charging interest, no such levy can be inferred or imposed by implication. The cited decisions consistently hold that interest cannot be recovered in the absence of a specific provision in the notification.
Conclusion: Interest was not leviable in the absence of an express provision in the notification.
Final Conclusion: The demand of interest could not survive either on jurisdictional grounds or on merits, and the assessee succeeded in the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: A demand of interest cannot be sustained unless it is expressly authorised by the governing notification or other enabling provision, and an adjudicating authority cannot, after remand, introduce a fresh liability by addendum beyond the scope of the original adjudication.
TaxTMI 
