TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Delay Condoned, Interest Demand Dismissed: Central Excise Act Case</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Central Excise Delhi-II Versus Som Pan Products Alloys Pvt Ltd</h3> The Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and disposed of the application. The appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was filed ... Abatement of the excess duty paid denied - demand of interest - Held that:- No plausible reason has been given by the Department in the first instance for the delay of three months in deciding the Assessee’s request for abatement of the excess duty paid by it during the month of January 2011. The Court is not satisfied that the demand of interest for a period of three months, which was occasioned on Department’s own inability to promptly decide the request of Assessee, is sustainable in law. Consequently, the Court leaves the question raised in the present case for examination in an appropriate case if the facts so warrant. Issues Involved:1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.2. Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order of CESTAT.3. Justification for the demand of interest for an interim period.4. Applicability of the limitation period for raising the demand of interest.Analysis:Issue 1: Condonation of delay in filing the appealThe Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal based on the reasons stated in the application, and subsequently disposed of the application.Issue 2: Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944The Department filed an appeal against the order of the CESTAT, which affirmed the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The case involved the Assessee, a manufacturer of pan masala, seeking abatement of duty for a period of closure in January 2011. The Department delayed in deciding the Assessee's request for adjustment, leading to a demand for interest for the interim period. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Assessee's appeal, setting aside the demand, citing the expiration of the limitation period under Section 11A of the Act. The CESTAT upheld this decision.Issue 3: Justification for the demand of interest for an interim periodThe Department raised a demand for interest for the interim period between the Assessee's request for abatement and the Department's decision. The Court noted the Department's delay in deciding the request, which led to the demand for interest. The Court found the demand unsustainable, as it was caused by the Department's own inability to promptly address the Assessee's request.Issue 4: Applicability of the limitation period for raising the demand of interestThe Department argued that the question of the applicable limitation period for raising the demand of interest was a legal issue in the case. However, the Court declined to entertain the appeal on this question, as it found the demand for interest unsustainable due to the Department's delay in deciding the Assessee's request. The Court dismissed the appeal and the application accordingly.In conclusion, the judgment dealt with issues related to condonation of delay, appeal under the Central Excise Act, justification for demand of interest, and the applicability of the limitation period. The Court emphasized the importance of prompt decision-making by the Department and dismissed the appeal due to the unsustainable demand for interest caused by the Department's delay.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
