TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 340
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vailed inputs for manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted final products and were not maintaining separate accounts and inventory of inputs meant for dutiable final products and exempted final products, in accordance with provisions of Rule 57CC during the period of dispute i.e. during 1997-1999 period, they were reversing an amount equal to 8% of the sale value of the exempted final products at the time of their clearances. The appellant, however, while paying an amount equal to 8% of the sale value of the exempted final products under the provisions of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944,were recovering this amount from their customers. The Department was of the view that the amount equal to the 8% of the sale value of the exe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order was also silent about the interest. 1.3 Subsequent to the Tribunal s order, the appellant paid the amount of Rs. 3,26,237/-. The Department, however, wanted interest on this amount under Section 11AB. Since the appellant did not pay this amount, the Assistant Commissioner vide orders dated 18/11/04 and 27/12/04 adjusted the amount of interest from two refund claims payable to the appellant. The appellant filed appeals to Commissioner (Appeals) against the orders-in-original of the Assistant Commissioner adjusting the amount of interest from the refund claims. In course of proceeding of hearing of the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant made a plea that during the period of dispute there was no provision for levy ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tracted even if this amount has been charged from the customers, even the demand under Section 11D would not survive and therefore there is no question of charging interest on the same, and that in view of this, the impugned order upholding the recovery of interest is not sustainable. 4. Shri M.S. Negi, the learned DR, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in it, and pleaded that when the CCE (Appeals) in his order dated 12/05/03 has upheld the Joint Commissioner s order dated 31/08/01 in toto and the appeal filed by the appellant before the Tribunal except for setting aside the penalty, was rejected, the levy of interest cannot be agitated once again and that in view of this, there is no inf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it under Section 11AB and penalty under Section 11AC. The Joint Commissioner s order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) only to the extent of demand under Section 11D and the penalty under Section 11AC. The CCE (Appeals) s order is silent about interest under Section 11AB and it is this order of CCE (Appeals) which was upheld by the Tribunal except for setting aside of penalty. The point of dispute is as to whether the appellant would required to pay interest on this amount under Section 11AB. 7. Section 11D (1) introduced w.e.f. 20th September 1991 provided that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any order or direction of the Appellate Tribunal or any Court or any provisions of this Act or the rules made thereund....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... duty which has not been levied or has been short levied or short paid or has been erroneously refunded and has been held as recoverable from a person in terms of Sub-Section (2) of Section 11A. We are of the view Section 11AB is not applicable to the amount recoverable under Section 11D (3) readwith Section 11D (1) and 11D (2). The provisions of recovery of interest on the amount determined as payable under Section 11D (3) was made only w.e.f. 14/5/03 by inserting Section 11DD and in absence of any specific provision regarding its retrospective application, the same cannot be applied retrospectively. Therefore, no interest under Section 11AB was chargeable on the demand confirmed under Section 11D (3). 8. As regards the Revenue s plea tha....