TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 406
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for non-payment of Additional Duty of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) on GTCW consumed captively in the manufacture of Dipped Tyre Cord Warpsheet and Grey Dipped Tyre Cord Warpsheets and cleared under job work challan under Notification No.214/86-CE, dated 25.03.1986. By Order-in-Original dated 18.07.1996 and 27.12.1996, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty along with interest and also imposed penalty. On 13.01.1998, the appellant paid the entire amount of duty and also filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). By Order-in-Appeal No.32&33/98-(MDU), dated 12.05.1998, the Commissioner (Appeals), Trichy, set aside the Adjudication Orders and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant. Revenue filed the appeal befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en held that the computation of interest will commence after three months from the date of determination of duty under Section 11A(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 as per order of Adjudicating authority. 4. The learned Representative on behalf of the appellant submits that Commissioner (Appeals) by Order-in-Appeal, dated 12.05.1998 set aside the adjudication order and therefore, the adjudication orders dated 18.07.1995 and 26.12.1996 are non-est. The Tribunal by Final Order dated 30.05.2003 modified the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and confirmed the demand of duty. So, the demand of interest would arise after three months from the date of Final Order of the Tribunal. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra) the demand was redetermined by de novo adjudication order. But, in the present case, there is no redetermination of duty and, therefore, the date of the adjudication order is appropriate for demand of interest. He further submits that on similar issue, the Tribunal in the case of Future Fibres Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai reported in 2008 (232) E.L.T. 301 (Tri.-Chennai), Steel Knight Casting Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik reported in 2010 (261) E.L.T. 476 (Tri.-Mumbai) and Intech Engineering & Services (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III reported in 2003 (154) E.L.T.226 (Tri.-Chennai) rejected the appeal filed by the assessee. He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st is payable as per Explanation I or II of Section 11AA. But, if the Commissioner (Appeals) is annulling the order, demand of duty is non-existent. 6.2 In the instant case, the Commissioner (Appeals) by Order-in-Appeal dated 12.05.1998 set aside both the Order-in-Original dated 18.07.1996 and 26.12.1996. The Tribunal by Final Order dated 30 th May, 2003 modified the order of Commissioner (Appeals). The relevant portion of the Final order of the Tribunal is reproduced below:- "4. We have considered rival submissions and we are of the considered opinion that no duty is required to be paid by the job workers in view of the judgment rendered by the Tribunal in the case of M.Tex & D.K. Processors (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r refund as per law. As regards the payment of duty on the intermediate product captively consumed in the manufacture of Dipped Tyre Cord Fabrics the authorized representative conceded and the same is payable as reported to have been paid by them and they have also taken MODVAT credit. The impugned order is, therefore, modified in the above terms." (Emphasis supplied) 6.3 It is seen that the Tribunal by final order dated 30.05.2003 confirmed the additional duty of excise and modified the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Explanation 1 of Section 11AA of the said Act provides that where the duty demand to be payable is reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal or as the case may ....