2016 (1) TMI 694

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....VICHANDRAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri Govind Dixit, DR For the Rspondent : Shri A Upadhyay, Representative ORDER PER: SULEKHA BEEVI CS: The above is filed by Revenue challenging the impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) which set aside the demand of interest. 2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of refined edible soya bean oil. They were ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....emand was confirmed. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) though confirmed the duty liability held that respondents are not liable to pay interest. The Revenue has filed this appeal challenging the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that respondents are not liable to pay interest. 3. It is the case of the Revenue that Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 15 of CETA, 1985 was inserted on 28.02.2005 giv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....supra). Thereafter a new Chapter Note was inserted in Chapter 15 of CETA, 1985 vide Financial Bill, 2005. The Chapter Note inserted is as under:- "87(1) In the first Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, in Chapter 15, after Note 4, the following Note shall be inserted and shall be deemed to have been inserted for the period commencing on and from the 1st day of March, 1986 and endin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nue does not appear to be attractive. The liability to pay interest arises only when the amount becomes due. The amount falls due only after the insertion of the amendment. The respondents discharged their liability within the time limit. Though the product is made dutiable w.e.f. 1.3.2003, there was no liability to pay duty on that date, as the amendment occurred only on 28.02.2005. In our consid....