Court invalidates Rule 8(3) on interest calculation, demands quashed, petitioners prevail The Court held that the disputed part of Rule 8(3) of the Central Excise Rules was invalid. Interest on delayed payment should be calculated at a flat ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
The Court held that the disputed part of Rule 8(3) of the Central Excise Rules was invalid. Interest on delayed payment should be calculated at a flat rate of two per cent per month or twenty-four per cent per annum, in line with statutory provisions. Demand notices were quashed as petitioners had paid interest at the correct rate. Petitions were allowed, and no costs were awarded.
Issues: Controversy over interest payment on delayed excise duty between May 2003 to August 2004 and December 2003 to February 2004 under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
Analysis: The judgment addresses the challenge to sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, concerning the interest rate on delayed payment of excise duty between specific periods. The petitioners contended that the phrase "rupees one thousand per day, or whichever is higher" in the rule was ultra vires Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. They relied on a Rajasthan High Court decision, which held that interest should be charged at a flat rate of two per cent per month or twenty-four per cent per annum, as per the permissible limit under the Act. The Department did not dispute the applicability of the Rajasthan High Court decision to the present case.
The Court noted the amendments to Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, particularly the change introduced by Notification No. 12 of 2003, which increased the interest rate to two per cent per month or rupees one thousand per day, whichever is higher. This amendment was challenged, and the Rajasthan High Court had declared part of Rule 8(3) invalid, holding that interest should be charged at a flat rate of two per cent per month or twenty-four per cent per annum. The High Court agreed with this interpretation, emphasizing the adherence to Section 11AB of the Act.
Consequently, the Court held that the disputed part of Rule 8(3) was invalid, and the interest on delayed payment should be calculated at a flat rate of two per cent per month or twenty-four per cent per annum, as per the statutory provisions. The demand notices issued by the Department were quashed, as the petitioners had already paid interest at the correct rate. The petitions were allowed, and no costs were awarded in the circumstances.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
TaxTMI 
