TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (6) TMI 931
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal, we in the past directed the respondents before us to deposit 50% of the amount so demanded and as suggested by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, instead of remanding the matter back, we decided to hear out the writ application itself, as this writ application can be disposed of on a pure question of law. 2. Consequently, we heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties on the merit of the writ application itself and propose to dispose of this appeal on merit. 3. In the writ application, the writ petitioners challenged a demand in the form of a letter dated 22nd May, 2008 (Annexure P-17) by which the Superintendent of Central Excise demanded interest in terms of Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut jurisdiction, in such a case, notwithstanding the existence of the alternative remedy, a Writ Court is quite competent to entertain a writ application challenging such illegal demand. Mr. Bajoria, therefore, prays for entering into the question whether such demand was within the scope of the Act. 9. After hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and after taking into consideration the well-settled proposition of law that notwithstanding the existence of an alternative remedy, a Writ Court is not powerless to entertain a writ-application, particularly when the order challenged in the writ application is alleged to be without jurisdiction at the instance of a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he period from 20th November, 1986 to 20th February, 1987 and directed the assessee to make payment of the aforesaid amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said order. 14. Subsequently, as pointed out above, the demand of interest was made under Section 11AA of the Act by not considering the order dated 30th January, 2004 as the original order, but by treating the order of 3rd July, 1995, which had since been set aside by the learned Tribunal, as the original order. 15. Mr. Bajoria, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners/respondents, has, in this connection, placed strong reliance upon the provision contained in Section 11AA of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time, and submitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay interest under this section from the date immediately after three months from such date, till the date of payment of such duty. Explanation 1. - Where the duty determined to be payable is reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal (National Tax Tribunal) or as the case may be, the court, the date of such determination 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,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 11AA of the Act should be 30th January, 2004. Thus, Section 11AA of the Act has no application to the case before us. 18. We fully appreciate that the previous order setting aside the original order of assessment and directing for recalculation could not be treated to be a case of reduction of the original amount within the meaning of the Explanation-I of Section 11AA(1) of the Act and as such, the order dated 30th January, 2004 should be treated to be the date of the original determination for the purpose of Section 11AA. 19. We, therefore, find that the Revenue acted without jurisdiction in demanding interest in terms of Section 11AA of the Act, although there is specific bar created under sub-section (2) of Section....