Tribunal rules no interest payable on duty; retrospective amendments impermissible.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the Appellant, ruling that no interest was payable on the duty amount already paid due to a retrospective amendment of the Finance Act. The Tribunal found that previous Tribunal and Supreme Court decisions supported the Appellant's position, emphasizing that creating an offense retrospectively is impermissible. The Tribunal distinguished a later Supreme Court decision cited by the Respondent, noting it did not address the consequences of retrospective amendment. As a result, the appeal was allowed in favor of the Appellant with any consequential relief granted.

---

---

Issues: Liability to pay interest on duty amount already paid.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of refined edible oil, was in question regarding the liability to pay interest on the duty amount of Rs. 1,66,220 already paid by them. The learned CA for the Appellant referred to a previous Tribunal case and a Supreme Court decision where it was held that no interest is payable in similar circumstances. On the other hand, the learned AR for the Respondent relied on a different Supreme Court decision, arguing that it should take precedence due to being a later decision. The Tribunal noted that the previous Tribunal case had already considered the issue and concluded that no interest was payable due to retrospective amendment of the Finance Act. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the Supreme Court decision cited by the Appellant also supported the Appellant's position, stating that creating an offense retrospectively is impermissible. The Tribunal distinguished another Supreme Court decision cited by the Respondent, emphasizing that it did not address the consequences of retrospective amendment. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the decisions cited by the Appellant were relevant, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the Appellant with any consequential relief granted.

---