2014 (11) TMI 781

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of 2005 is concerned, and for the period between December, 2003 to February, 2004, so far as Special Civil Application No. 23751 of 2005 is concerned. It appears that during the aforesaid period, there was a delay caused in payment of excise duty, on which respective petitioners were liable to pay interest on delayed payment of excise duty. That at the relevant time, the respective petitioners paid interest on delayed payment of duty at the rate of two per cent per month. However, the Department was of the opinion that the respective petitioners were liable to pay interest on delayed payment of excise duty as per sub-rule (3) of Rule 8, which was prevailing at the relevant time as per Notification No. 12/2003, dated 1st March 2003 i.e., at ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lared part of Rule 8(3), which was prevailing at the relevant time as per Notification No. 12/2003 and which includes expression, "at the rate of two per cent per month or rupees one thousand per day; whichever is higher" as invalid and it is held that the interest chargeable on the delayed payment had to be only at the rate of two per cent per month, or for that matter, twenty four per cent per annum, which is the permissible limit in terms of Section 11AB of the Act. It is, therefore, requested to allow the present Special Civil Applications and to quash and set aside the impugned demand notices by holding that the respective petitioners are liable to pay interest on the delayed payment for the period in question only at the rate of two p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....two per cent per month or rupees one thousand per day; whichever is higher, for the period starting with the first day after due date, till the date of actual payment of the outstanding amount. 7.1 It appears that thereafter, sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2002 came to be amended and the earlier sub-rule (3) of Rule 8, as per Notification 4 of 2002, came to be restored with effect from 1st April, 2005. As stated hereinabove, the dispute in the present Special Civil Applications is with respect to the period between Notification No. 12 of 2003, dated 1st March, 2003 and Notification No. 17 of 2005 dated 31st March, 2005. It is not in dispute that sub-rule (3) of Rule 8, which was prevailing at the relevant time, as per Notifica....