2018 (1) TMI 1126

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er (AR), for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of oil seeds and are registered with the Central Excise Department. The appellant used to take physical stock verification of finished goods and semi-finished goods periodically and during such verification, if any shortage of such goods is noticed, the same were written off as expenditure in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....issioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, Id. counsel Shri Joseph Prabhakar submitted that the demand of interest is hit by limitation, since the period involved is 2008 - 09, 2009 - 10 and 2010 - 11. He submitted that the show cause notice dated 2.11.2015 is issued even beyond the period of five years and therefore is unsustainable. It is also stress....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iterated the findings in the impugned order. He adverted to section 11 AA of Central Excise Act and submitted that the appellant is liable to pay when they are paying the duty belatedly. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The appellants have discharged the duty liability in 2012 and the show cause notice has been issued only on 2.11.2015. The period of dispute is from 2008 - 09 to 2010 - 11 which is mu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... vis-a-vis interest. The period in the said judgment was prior to 8.4.2011, before introduction of section 11AA. The Hon'ble High Court held the issue in favour of assessee holding that limitation would mutatis mutandis apply for demand of interest. On such score, I find that the impugned demand confirming the interest liability is unsustainable and requires to be set aside which I hereby do. ....