TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (6) TMI 146
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The demand relates to disputed eligibility of FFL to an exemption on Polyester stable fibre from payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 84/87-C.E. dated 1-3-87. The order of the original authority had been affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 17-5-1995 and vacated by the Tribunal on 20-6-1996. The dispute got finally settled in favour of the Revenue by the judgment of the apex Court on 26-2-2004 The department initiated proceedings to recover the interest due on the duty demand in terms of Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act). The Order-in-Original Nos. 7/05 and 8/05 were passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise adjusting respectively the amount of Rs.5 lakhs deposited with the Commissioner (Appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was liable to pay interest only for the period of delay beyond three months from the judgment of the Apex Court in the instant case. 2. Yet another argument raised consistently before the lower authorities by the appellant is that pre-deposit of Rs. 2.5 lakhs paid by it for their appeal in the subject dispute to be heard by the Tribunal had to be refunded to them immediately after the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in 26-6-1996. As the pre-deposit was refunded to them only on 26-7-2001, they were entitled for interest for the delay. An amount of Rs.5 lakhs deposited in terms of Section 35F had become due to them pursuant to Order-in-Appeal No. 121/04 (M-I) dt. 18-8-2004. This amount was adjusted against the in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the appellate fora deciding the issue whether the appellants was eligible for the benefit of the exemption Notification. There was no determination or revision of duty liability at any stage after the decision of the original authority. Therefore, interest liability had to be reckoned from the date of the order of the original authority read with proviso to Section 11AA. As regards interest claimed on pre-deposit and the late payment of rebate, he submits that the same may be decided in terms of the judgment of the apex Court and the provisions of Section 11AA respectively. 4. I have carefully considered the case records and the rival submissions made by both sides. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) decided that the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which the duty is so determined, (b) for the amount of increased duty, the date of order by which the increased amount of duty is first determined to be payable; (c) for the amount of further increase of duty, the date of order on which the duty is so further increased". As rightly held by the lower appellate authority and reiterated by the ld. SDR, the Explanations deal with determination of duty liability involving variation in the amount of duty by way of increase or decrease. In the instant case the liability has not been revised by any authority. Only the dispute has been decided in favour or against the Revenue culminating in a judgment in favour of the Revenue by the apex Court. Therefore, the interest applicable has to be compute....