AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 605
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st which is statutorily required to be paid along with the duty determined. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant were engaged in the manufacture of Steel Items namely Steel Cog Stool classifiable under Heading No. 7308.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In trade parlance, the said item was known as TISCOG and was manufactured on specification authorized by TISCO Tata Iron and Steel Company, Jamshedpur. The appellant claimed SSI exemption Notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28.02.93 as amended. 2.1 Show Cause Notices were issued proposing to deny the benefit of the SSI Exemption Notification for the period 2002 to 2006 on the ground of violation of Paragraph 4 of the said Notification a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11A of the Central Excise Act,1944, along with interest under Section 11AB of the Act ibid prevalent at the relevant time. Therefore, non-confirmation of interest under Section 11AB of the Act ibid on the amount of duty confirmed under Section 11A of the Act ibid as proposed in the impugned SCN is contrary to law. By the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 14.07.17 the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the Learned Adjudicating authority has already determined the duty of excise and no separate Order is required for payment of interest which is statutorily required to be paid along with duty determined. 2.5 In the instant appeal, the appellant is aggrieved by the demand of interest vide impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 14.07.17. 3. The Learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ind the matter went upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the demand of duty in respect of the earlier period where the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided the case on merit in favour of the Revenue and set aside the penalties. For the proper appreciation of the case the relevant portion of the judgement dated 11.03.15 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced below :- "At this stage we would like to deal with another contention of the learned counsel for the respondent. He submits that even if the demand of duty is to be upheld, it is not a case where the Revenue Authorities could have imposed penalty under the provisions of Sec.11A (C) of the Act. For this purpose he has drawn our attention to various orders passed by the Tribunal, even ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amount of interest is specified separately. "4. Thus, not specifying the interest in the order does not alter its applicability and therefore, the same is not the subject matter of appeal. The interest is payable by virtue of sub-section (14) of Section 11A itself even if the same has not been specified separately in the order determining the duty. It is axiomatic that Legislation is operative proprio vigore on its enactment and effectuation. The operation of legislation is not contingent upon affirmation by the adjudicating authority. I find that the ld. adjudicating authority has already determined the duty of exercise payable by the respondent vide order dated 16.01.2017. Accordingly, no separate order is required for payment o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Section 11AB of the Act, 1944 and imposed penalties. On perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I find that the Learned Counsel prayed for setting aside the penalties only which was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, the appellant had not raised the demand of interest before Hon'ble Supreme Court. So, I do not find any force in the submission of the Learned Counsel for the appellant in this regard. Hence, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is required to be upheld on this ground also. 11. The Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the cross objection filed by the appellant was not considered. I find that the Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of non-confirm....