TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 1063
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....010 ("in short CTPM Rules"). 3. The retail packs of chewing tobacco packed in pouches of 3 gms., 5 gms., 8 gms., 10 gms. & 12 gms. were further packed in wholesale packages containing 32 pouches, 20 pouches, which were finally cleared from the factory in bulk pack in cartons containing number of wholesale packages. 4. Chewing tobacco was brought under 'Retail Sale Price' (RSP) based valuation under Section 4 A vide Entry No.24 A in Notification No.13/2002-CE (NT) dated 01.03.2003, therefore, the appellant valued and paid excise duty under Section 4 A of the Excise Act. The appellant, considering that the retail packages weighing upto 10 gms were exempt from affixing of RSP under erstwhile Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, therefore, the provisions of Section 4 A are not applicable to retail packs upto 10 gms. Hence, the appellant stopped assessing the goods packed in retails packages weighing upto 10 gms under Section 4A, and cleared the said pouches on the 'transaction value' determined under Section 4 of the Excise Act. However, the retail packs weighing more than 10 gms were cleared on RSP basis under Section 4A of the Excise Act. 5. The office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gainst the Order-in-Appeal dated 9.4.2006, Revenue preferred appeal before this Tribunal, being Appeal No.E/2314/2006, which was decided vide Final Order No.52942 of 2015 in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue. 10. Pending litigation before this Tribunal, Revenue issued 25 show cause notices for the succeeding period 1.8.2005 to 31.12.2006 and for 1.1.2006 to 8.3.2010. Meanwhile, Rule 2 (j) and Rule 17 of the Package Commodity Rules (Successive Rules to SWM Rules) were omitted from the Statute vide Notification dated 17.07.2006 w.e.f. 14.01.2007. 11. Pending adjudication of the aforementioned 25 show cause notices, the appellant closed down its manufacturing activities and surrendered its registration in May, 2011. Pending show cause notices were taken up for adjudication in August, 2012 and vide an order-in-original dated 31.12.2012, the Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand raised under 25 show cause notices with interest and also imposed penalty equivalent to 50% of the duty confirmed. 12. Being aggrieved, the appellant/assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) for the period August, 2005 to Jan. 2007, which were rejected and the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, i.e. from 28.02.2015, the date of Order-in-Appeal to the date of payment i.e. 31.03.2015 and thus, requested the Department to calculate the interest from the date it became due. 17. The Department vide letter dated 23.02.2016 again directed the appellant to pay interest of Rs. 14,46,697/- in terms of Section 11 AB of the Excise Act as held under Order-in-Original dated 31.12.2012. However, the appellant vide its letter dated 09.03.2016 informed the Department that interest was payable from the date of Order-in-Appeal dated 28.02.2015 till 30.03.2015 (i.e. the date of payment of duty), in terms of Section 11 AA of the Excise Act. 18. The Department vide its letters dated 21.03.2016 & 29.04.2016 directed the appellant to pay the interest and stated that interest is not payable under Section 11 AA of the Excise Act, as contended by the appellant, inasmuch as the same Section 11 AA was brought in statute book w.e.f. 08.04.2011, whereas the period of demand is prior to 08.04.2011 and hence, interest is payable under Section 11 AB of the Excise Act, otherwise coercive action will be initiated under Section 11 of the Excise Act read with Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is not sustainable. In support of his contention, he places reliance on the following decisions:- (i) CCE Vs. Premier Industries Ltd. -2009(248)ELT 833(T-Delhi) (ii) CCE Vs. Lucas TVS Ltd. -2010(262)ELT 444 (T-Chennai) Affirmed by the Hon'bleMadras High Court in CCE Vs. Lucas TVS ltd. -2016(333) ELT 259 (Madras). (iii) Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd.-2015 (317)ELT 152 (T-Chennai) (iv) Consumer Associates - 2019(11) TMI 233 (CESTAT-Chennai). 24. Accordingly, the ld. Counsel urges that the impugned order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside and further, prays for allowing their appeal with consequential relief. 25. On the contrary, ld. Authorised Representative for the respondent/Department relies on the findings in the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 26. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that similar issue arose before the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs. Lucas TVS Ltd. - 2010 (262) ELT 444 (Tribunal-Chennai), wherein the facts were that vide adjudication orders dated 9.1.1995 and 10.02.1995, the demand of over Rs. 34 lakhs was d....