Appeals dismissed on interest payment for delayed excise duty under Section 11AA. Appellants liable, writ denied.

The appeals challenging the payment of interest on delayed excise duty under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were dismissed. The court found that the appellants were liable to pay interest as the order under Section 11-A had attained finality, and they could not contest its legality. The appellants' request for a writ of mandamus was denied, and the reliance on a previous case was deemed misplaced. The appeals were dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Dismissal of writ petitions challenging the order dated 12-2-2009 regarding the payment of interest on delayed excise duty under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Appellants' contention of not being liable to pay interest.
3. Finality of the order passed under Section 11-A of the Act.
4. Validity of the order passed under Section 11-AA of the Act.
5. Entitlement of the appellants to the relief of issuing a writ of mandamus.
6. Applicability of the decision in the case of Swan Mills Limited v. Union of India to the present case.

Analysis:

1. The judgment questions the correctness of the order dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging the payment of interest on delayed excise duty under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants contended that they are not liable to pay interest. The learned single Judge dismissed the pleas after considering legal contentions and reasons presented by the parties.

2. The finality of the order passed under Section 11-A of the Act was a crucial aspect. The appellants had previously challenged the order up to the Apex Court, where their appeal was dismissed. The learned single Judge rightly concluded that the appellants cannot now argue against the order's legality and, consequently, the demand for interest under Section 11-AA of the Act.

3. The judgment emphasized that the order passed under Section 11-A of the Act had attained finality, and thus, the appellants were not entitled to the relief of issuing a writ of mandamus. The legality and validity of the order under Section 11-AA of the Act were upheld, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

4. The judgment clarified that the decision in the case of Swan Mills Limited v. Union of India was not applicable to the present situation as the assessment under Section 11A of the Act had already achieved finality. The reliance on this case by the appellants' counsel was deemed misplaced.

5. In conclusion, the appeals were dismissed based on the detailed analysis provided by the learned single Judge. The judgment highlighted the lack of merit in the appeals and the appellants' misconceived prayer for relief. The legal and factual considerations led to the dismissal of the appeals with costs incurred by the appellants.

---