2008 (11) TMI 90

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gation that it mis-stated about the raw material used in manufacturing goods, demand of duty under the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 was raised vide order dated 9-12-1992 (Annexure P-1). According to the Department, the petitioner was manufacturing man-made fibre and not spun yarn. The petitioner did not pay the amount and had the benefit of stay in its favour till 16-2-2006 when the matter was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. After this order, vide letter dated 23-11-2007 (Annexure P-5), Superintendent, Central Excise Range called upon the petitioner to deposit the amount of duty with interest. The petitioner deposited the amount of duty on 29-11-2007 but did not pay interest. The department vide letter dated 4-12-2007 (A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... been made as per statutory provision, particularly when on account of stay in favour of the petitioner, demand of duty could not be enforced earlier. At the time when order dated 9-12-1992 was passed, there was no statutory provision for interest and therefore, condition for demand of interest could not have been mentioned at the time of passing order dated 9-12-1992. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon Rule 8(3) and (4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which, it is pointed out, ceased to operate from 1-4-2005, submitted that for the period from 1-3-2002 to 1-4-2005, the petitioner could not be required to pay interest in excess of duty amount.....