2009 (12) TMI 828

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and 10-2-1995 demand of over Rs. 34 lakhs was determined against the assessees. The demands were set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 20-6-1995. The Order-in-Appeal was set aside by the Tribunal and the case was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) by Tribunal's Final Order dated 24-1-1997. The demand was re-confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 26-12-2000. It is the contention of the Revenue that since the demand of Rs. 34 lakhs earlier confirmed vide order dated 9-1-1995 and 10-2-1995, although set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 20-6-1995, was restored by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 26-12-2000, the determination of duty has taken effect in January and February ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is no ascertained duty, there is no question of compensating the State by way of interest. The fact that duty subsequently has been ascertained and becomes payable from the date when it was due, does not make a party liable for interest from that date. That situation is covered by the explanations to the Section. 17. Section 11AA has two explanations. By virtue of the first explanation, if duty payable is reduced, then the date of determination of reduction shall be date on which the amount of duty is first determined to be payable. In other words interest would be payable on the duty as reduced not from the date of such reduction of duty but from the date of the first order. That is because even if the duty is reduced there is still an....