2018 (1) TMI 640

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ucts without payment of Central Excise duty under warehousing procedure from their refinery during the year 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04. He pointed out that they had made payment of Rs. 1,59,17,602/- towards the cumulative losses beyond the condonable limits, on account of storage, handling and delivery by pipelines. Ld. Counsel argued that as per Rule 8(3) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, if the assessee fails to pay the amount of duty by the due date, he shall be liable to pay the outstanding amount along with interest. Ld. Counsel argued that in the instant case the goods were not removed from the factory or warehouse in terms of Rule 8(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and therefore Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is not applicable. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s issued by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise remanding interest in respect of same clearances for the very same period on 1.5.2006. The appellant filed their reply on 30.5.2006 and personal hearing in the matter was held on 17.8.2006 however second show cause notice was issued on 21.6.2007 by the Commissioner demanding a higher amount of interest based on additional grounds and also seeking to impose penalty. Ld. Counsel argued that second show cause notice for the same issue and same period, cannot be issued. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Siddharth Tubes 2004 (170) ELT 331 (T) and on the case of Delux Carpet Co. 2002 (146) ELT 80 (T). 2.3. Ld. Counsel further argued that the limitation prescribed under t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Whirlpool Ltd. 1996 (86) ELT 144(T) has held that the limitation prescribed under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 would be applicable to demand/recovery of interest on warehouse goods even though no time limit is prescribed under Sections 47 and 61(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. The said decision of Tribunal has been upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. A-177 (SC). In the case of Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. (supra) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has examined similar matter and held that the limitation prescribed under Section 11A would equally apply to demand of interest as well. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Kwality Ice Cream (supra) has also taken a similar view in para 5 of the said order, the follow....