Appellant granted stay on interest payment in tribunal case, citing limitations and legal precedents.

The appellant sought to dispense with the pre-deposit of interest confirmed against them, citing limitations and referencing relevant case law. The Revenue argued for the mandatory nature of interest payment without the need for a show cause notice. The Tribunal, considering a Division Bench decision, granted an unconditional stay on the interest amount, finding in favor of the appellant. The case delved into the application of limitation and the mandatory nature of interest payment, with references to various legal precedents to support the arguments presented by both parties.

---

---

Issues:
1. Stay petition to dispense with pre-deposit of interest confirmed against the appellant.
2. Assailed confirmation of interest on the point of limitation.

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of interest amounting to Rs. 17,03,012/- confirmed against them concerning the reversal of Cenvat credit worth approximately Rs. 75 lakhs. The appellants contested the confirmation of interest on the grounds of limitation, citing the decision in the case of CCE v. SKF India Ltd. where the issue was settled against them. The advocate acknowledged that the law became clear only after the Supreme Court judgment in 2009, indicating no suppression on their part for invoking a longer period. Referring to various decisions, including the Tribunal's decision in the case of EMCO Ltd., it was argued that the limitation under Section 11A for the principal amount should equally apply to the demand of interest.

2. The Revenue, represented by the Jt. CDR, highlighted decisions of the Tribunal emphasizing that there is no requirement for a show cause notice for the confirmation of interest, and the payment of interest is mandatory for the assessee without any option. Specifically, reference was made to the case of Abhinav Industries, where it was observed that the language used in the relevant section indicates the mandatory nature of interest payment. The advocate, in response, pointed out that the decisions cited by the Revenue were by Single Member Benches, whereas the latest decision in the case of EMCO was by a Division Bench, considering precedent decisions of the Supreme Court. The Tribunal, after considering the Division Bench decision in the case of EMCO Ltd., found that the appellant had a prima facie good case in their favor, leading to the decision to allow unconditional stay of the interest amount.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the arguments presented by both parties regarding the confirmation of interest against the appellant and the application of limitation in such cases. The references to various decisions and the distinction between Single Member Bench and Division Bench decisions add depth to the understanding of the legal principles involved in the case.

---