TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1178
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;) in Appeal No. 1150/2008: (i) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal has committed an error while not accepting the contention of revenue that the relevant date for calculation of interest would be the date on which "an amount of duty is first determined to be payable" as per the Explanation 1 to Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as existing during the relevant period ? (ii) Whether reduction in the amount of duty, whether made by the Tribunal itself or by the Original Adjudicating Authority on the directions of Tribunal, will affect the date of first determination of duty, but would only affect the quantum of duty payable by the party and the respondent is liable to pay the interest on delayed discharge of Central....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), levied interest on delayed payment of the duty for the period from the dates when first Orders-in-Original were passed on 7.10.1998 and 30.9.1999, till its payment. The Tribunal has wrongly set aside the demand of interest placing reliance upon an earlier order passed by the Tribunal in Aeon's Construction Products Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chennai, 2007 (215) ELT 464. The submission is that the aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the facts of the case, where the order passed by the adjudicating authority was set aside and the matter was remanded back for fresh determination. In the case in hand, the levy of duty as such was not disputed by the respondent. The matter was remanded back only for some calculation purposes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Vadodara, 2001 (128) ELT 13 (SC) opined that duty was payable, the same was deposited without even waiting for the out-come of appeal filed by the respondent. The bonafides are well established. The fact that even after remand, the amount of duty levied on the respondent was reduced from the orders initially passed itself shows that the facts were required to be gone into. The amount was, in fact, determined after detailed enquiry, which was got conducted through Assistant Commissioner and only then the assessment could be framed. Remand by the appellate authority would necessarily mean that the order under challenge had lost its significance. Then only a fresh order could be passed. There cannot be two enforceable orders for the same peri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r back to the adjudicating authority with a direction to determine the amount of duty payable after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the respondent. Thereafter, the duty was re-calculated. In the process, the adjudicating authority had to get an enquiry made through the Assistant Commissioner, who submitted its report and it was only on the basis thereof that amount of duty was finally determined at Rs. 90,03,543/- and Rs. 2,31,12,248/- against Rs. 97,57,049.63 and Rs. 2,38,50,008/-, respectively. Thereafter, vide order dated 31.3.2008, the adjudicating authority directed the respondent to pay interest on the amount of duty from the dates the orders were passed in the first round of litigation till the amount was paid. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ermination shall be the date on which an amount of duty is first determined to be payable. Explanation 2.- Where the duty determined to be payable is increased or further increased by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal or, as the case may be, the Court, the date of such determination shall be,- (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-sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the date of determination of reduction shall be date on which the amount of duty is first determined to be payable. In other words interest would be payable on the duty as reduced not from the date of such reduction of duty but from the date of the first order. That is because even if the duty is reduced there is still an order of determination but a reduced amount. By Explanation 2 where duty payable is increased or further increased two situations are set out. For the amount of duty first determined to be payable it is the date on which the duty was first determined and in so far as the increase of duty is concerned, the date on which the increased amount of duty is payable. So also in the case of further increase the date of the order ....