TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Granted: Interest Demand Set Aside, Case Remanded for Correct Quantification</h1> The judgment allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand of interest on delayed duty payments made without prior notice and remanding the case for ... Demand - Interest Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment are the demand of interest on delayed duty payments, appealability of the Superintendent's letter, applicability of Rule 8(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and the correct quantification of interest.Demand of Interest on Duty Payments:The appellants had delayed paying duty for certain fortnights between 1-12-2002 and 31-3-2003. Interest on such duty amounts was paid until 31-3-2003. The jurisdictional Superintendent demanded interest on these amounts from 1-4-2003 under Rule 8(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The party appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the appeal, stating that the demand was not appealable and the relief sought was premature.Appeal Against Commissioner's Decision:In the appeal against the Commissioner's decision, the appellants relied on a Tribunal decision where a similar demand was set aside due to lack of a show-cause notice. The appellants argued that the Superintendent's letter demanding interest was appealable. The appellants also highlighted that the sub-rule of Rule 8 had been partly struck down by the Rajasthan High Court, making the proposal to levy interest under that sub-rule invalid.Decision and Rationale:After considering the submissions, it was accepted that the Superintendent's letter demanding interest was appealable. The demand was made under Rule 8(3) as amended, without prior notice to the party, violating natural justice. The Superintendent later invoked Section 11AB directly in a subsequent letter, which was deemed improper. The judgment set aside the impugned order and the demand of interest, remanding the case for correct quantification of interest in accordance with the law.Conclusion:The judgment allowed the appeal by remanding the case for the correct quantification of interest, considering the ruling of the Rajasthan High Court. The appellants were to be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case regarding the applicable law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
