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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether interest on differential excise duty was recoverable without applying the limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis: The demand related to interest on differential duty arising from price escalation after clearance of goods. The Tribunal followed the view that interest under Section 11AB, whether arising from a duty demand confirmed under Section 11A(2), a self-admitted liability under Section 11A(2B), or delayed payment of self-assessed duty under Rule 6 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, is a sum due to the Government recoverable under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On that basis, the issuance of a show cause notice under Section 11A was treated only as a communication for recovery of interest and not as a proceeding subject to limitation under Section 11A.
Conclusion: The plea that the interest demand was barred by limitation was rejected, and the demand for interest was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on the sole substantive ground urged, as the interest demand on differential duty was held recoverable without application of Section 11A limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: Interest payable on excise duty shortfall is a government dues recovery claim under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and is not subject to the limitation period prescribed for duty demands under Section 11A.