Interest liability needs express statutory authority; adoption of excise procedures alone cannot justify interest on cess.

A general adoption clause applying Central Excise Act machinery to levy and collection does not, by itself, authorise recovery of interest on delayed payment of cess. The Tribunal held that interest liability requires clear statutory authority and cannot be imposed by implication or equity. It also noted that the Act separately provided for penalty where intended, indicating that the legislature would have expressly provided for interest if that consequence was meant to apply. On that reasoning, Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked for the cess under the Sugar Export Promotion Act, and the interest demand was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be recovered on delayed payment of cess under Section 7 of the Sugar Export Promotion Act, 1958 when Section 7(4) merely adopts the Central Excise Act for levy and collection and contains no express provision for interest.

Analysis: Section 7(4) of the Sugar Export Promotion Act, 1958 makes the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the rules thereunder applicable, so far as may be, to the levy and collection of duty or other sums referred to in Section 7. The provision was read as adopting the procedural machinery for levy and collection, not as creating a separate and explicit authority to charge interest. The reasoning was reinforced by the structure of Section 7, since Section 7(3) separately provides for penalty, showing that where the legislature intended a penal consequence it said so expressly. The Tribunal also relied on the principle that interest liability, like penal liability, requires clear statutory authority and cannot be imposed merely on equity or by implication. The analogy drawn from decisions concerning similar adoption clauses in other enactments supported the view that absent an express provision, Section 11AB could not be invoked for this cess.

Conclusion: Interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not recoverable on the cess under the Sugar Export Promotion Act, 1958. The demand of interest was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the impugned confirmation of interest was quashed, with consequential relief to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A charging or recovery provision for interest must be expressly provided by statute; a general adoption clause applying Central Excise procedures to levy and collection does not, by itself, authorise recovery of interest in the absence of clear legislative mandate.

---