TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 567
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Delhi III, Vanijya Nikunj, Udyog Vihar, Phase-Gurgaon (Haryana). 2. Notice of the application was issued to the respondent on 18.12.2013. Mr. Sukhdev Sharma, Advocate appears. 3. At the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, the main appeal is taken up today for hearing. CEA No.8 of 2011 4. The assessee has preferred this appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated 27.9.2010 Annexure A.1 in Appeal No.3031 of 2009-SM passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, (in short, "the Tribunal'), claiming following substantial questions of law:- "(i) Whether....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntative and therefore the confirmation of such illegal order by the appellate authority without even seeing the original records and the manner of passing orders by the respondent had led to serious injustice and avoidable multiplicity of proceedings for which the Tribunal's order as well as the order in original are liable to be quashed? (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not following the decisions of courts and Tribunals placed before it on the question of extended period of limitation not being invokable for levy of duty or interest and thereby passing the impugned order to make out a new case against the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellate stage could not have functioned as original authority to give its own findings of fact without records and documents of the revenue placed before it and when no such finding had been given by the original authority, thereby causing grave injustice/prejudice to the appellant for which the impugned order is unsustainable? (viii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the definition of 'relevant date' in section 11A(3) (ii) (b) under which the date of adjustment of duty paid provisionally after final assessment thereof is required to be taken as the only basis for raising a demand if an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the demand of interest of Rs. 6,58,621/- leviable on the differential duty of Rs. 55,28,780/-under Section 11AB read with section 11A of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 27.9.2010, Annexure A.1, the appeal was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present petition is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the decision of this Court in Jai Bharat Maruti Ltd.'s case (supra) and may be disposed of in the same terms. In the said case, it has been held as under:- "We have heard counsel for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or interest on the delayed payment for the period from 2002-03 to 2005-06. Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Kwality Ice Cream Company v. Union of India W.P.(c) 14414-15/2006 decided on 18.1.2012 has also held that period of limitation, unless otherwise stipulated by the statute, which applies to a claim for the principal amount should also apply to the claim for interest thereon. " A similar view has been taken by the Bombay High Court in Central Excise Appeal No. 116/2011, CCE v. Supreme Petrochem Ltd. and the Gujarat High Court in Tax Appeal No.56/2011, CCE&C v. Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Company Ltd. 2012 (285) ELT 336. The respondents do not allege much less assert that any other period of limitation applies or that....