TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 708
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dt. 24.04.2006 Adjudicating Authority has confirmed a demand of Rs. 1,15,45,576/- against the appellant as interest payable u/s 11 AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Dr. S.Chakraborty (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant during hearing, as well as through written submissions, argued that AC in charge of the appellant's unit vide adjudication Orders dt.11.03.1988 and 19.05.1988 decided the classification of appellant's product "Pitch Creosote Mixture" under CETA 2708.11 instead of CETA 2706.00 claimed by the appellant. That duty of Rs. 84,82,950/- was demanded from the appellant under 8 periodical show cause notices for the period September, 1985 to December, 9187. That the entire duty was deposited by the respondent under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He made the Bench go through the relevant show cause notices and adjudication orders. That the findings of the Adjudicating authority that demands were earlier confirmed under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is thus ex-facie incorrect and contrary to the records of the case. He also relied upon the following case laws:- (a) CCE v. Eicher Demm [2010 (252) ELT 519 (HP)] (b) Caprihans India Ltd. v. CCE [2011 (267) ELT 238 (T)] (c) Kitply Industries Ltd. v. CCE [2003 (152) ELT 208 (T-Kol) (ii) That the case law of CCE v. Woodcraft Products Ltd.[2002 (146) ELT 247(SC)] relied upon by Revenue is not applicable to the present facts in view of Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Learned AR thus strongly defended the order passed by the Adjudicating authority. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. Issue involved in the present proceedings is whether interest under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 can be recovered from the appellant, with respect to a demand on Pitch Creosote Mixture (PCM) for the period 01.03.86 to 31.12.87 paid by the appellant on 04.03.2004, after the issue was partly decided against them as per Apex Court's order reported as CCE, Bolpur v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. [2004 (164) ELT 387(SC)]. 4.1 Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was introduced with effect from 26.05.1995 and is reproduced below:- "Section 11AA. Interest on delayed payment of d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- (a) for the amount of duty first determined to be payable, the date on which the duty is so determined; (b) for the amount of increased duty, the date of order by which the increased amount of duty is first determined to be payable; (c) for the amount of further increase of duty, the date of order on which the duty is so further increased. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to cases where the duty becomes payable on and after the date on which the Finance Bill, 2001 receives the assent of the President." 4.2 One of the arguments of the appellant is that demands in the current proceedings by the show cause notices and earlier confirmed orders were not made under Section 11A(2) of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 11-AC comes into play only when duty is determined under sub-section 2 of Section 11. However, as far as Section 11-AB is concerned, it relates to non-payment or short payment of duty or erroneous refund of duty after determination of sub-section 2 of Section 11-A. But this section also deals with payment of duty under sub-section (2-B) of Section 11-A which relates to voluntary payment of duty before service of notice under Section 11-A(1). Admittedly, in the present case no notice was issued under Section 11-A till the time when the amount was deposited by the assessee. This notice was issued after three years. 7.In our considered opinion it is the first proviso which applies in the present case. The order, instruction or dire....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cable to the present factual matrix. This relied upon case decided by Apex Court was with respect to recovery of refund granted to an assessee. It is evident from para 5 of this case law that assessee in that case gave an undertaking to the Revenue that amounts refunded would be repaid within seven days in the event of Supreme Court decision against that assessee. Further the demands for recovering erroneous refund in that case was issued under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was under these facts Apex Court held that assessee was bound to restitute the demands of such refund to the Revenue, with interest. In the present appeal before us neither the duty is determined under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise act, 1944 nor ....