2013 (10) TMI 1515

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....L. Narasimhan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri U.K. Srivastava, AR, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - After hearing both sides we find that show cause notices were issued to the appellants for the period April, 1998 to September, 1999 proposing confirmation of demand of duty on the ground of use of brand name of another person. The said show cause not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cordingly, he rejected their appeal. However, he modified quantum of interest required to be paid by the appellants. The said order is challenged before Tribunal. 3. The short question required to be decided in the present appeal is as to whether interest raised in the year 2006 in respect of demands belonging to 1998-99, which were confirmed long ago, would attract the limitation or not. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... decision of the Tribunal stands reversed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in their recent judgment reported as Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. v. CCE, 2013-TIOL-631-HC-DEL-CX = 2013 (297) E.L.T. 332 (Del.). As such we find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellants laying down that the period of limitation would apply to the demand of interest. Inasmuch as interest demand has been ....