Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Alembic Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ... on 19 May, 2015
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad Appeal No. : E/1175-1179/2007 (Arising out of OIA-COMMR-A-/176-180/VDR-II/2007 dated 30.8.2007, passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Service Tax & Customs, Vadodara) M/s. Alembic Limited : Appellant (s) VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vadodara-II : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : Shri S.R. Dixit, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Shri Lalatendu Patra, Authorised Representative For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. H.K. Thakur, Hon'ble Member (Technical) 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. H.K. Thakur, Hon'ble Member (Technical) Date of Hearing / Decision : 19.05.2015 ORDER No. A/10607-10611/2015 Dated 19.05.2015 Per : Mr. P.K. Das;
These appeals are arising out of a common order and therefore, all are taken up together for disposal.
2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Organic Chemicals classifiable under Chapter 29 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Proceedings were initiated by the department alleging undervaluation of the goods and the lower authorities confirmed demand of duty and imposed penalty. The matter went up to Tribunal. By Final Order dated 12.7.2005, the Tribunal upheld demand of duty and modified the amount of penalty. In the present cases, the adjudicating authority appropriated the amount of interest on the said demand of duty, against the other rebate of refund order dated 13.09.2005, which was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals). By the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals. The appellants filed these appeals.
3. Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that, in the meantime, there is subsequent development in these matters in so far as on the identical issue, the Tribunal by Miscellaneous Order No. M/14161-14162/2014 dated 23.09.2014, rectified the earlier order, reported in 2014-TIOL-1282-CESTAT-AHM, held that in view of the revenue neutrality, interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the clearances made before 11.05.2001, cannot be demanded from the appellants even though the demand were confirmed by invoking extended period. He submits that in view of the order dated 16.7.2014, they are entitled to get the refund of the amount of interest appropriated by the impugned order. He also submits that they are eligible for interest on illegal appropriation of amount of interest by orders passed during 2005.
4. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that the appellants have not demanded interest on interest before the lower authorities. He further submits that there is no provision for refund of interest on interest, the appellants are not eligible to claim interest on interest.
5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that in the present appeals, the adjudicating authority sanctioned rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and by exercising powers vested under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, appropriated the amount towards interest outstanding arising out of the other demand. In view of the decision, in the appellants own case vide Final Order dated 16.7.2014, as amended by Miscellaneous Order dated 23.9.2014, the appellants are entitled to get refund of interest appropriated by the adjudicating authority. We agree with the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative to the extent that the appellant had not claimed payment of interest on the amount appropriated, before the lower authorities.
6. In view of the above discussions, we set-aside the impugned orders and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(H.K. Thakur) (P.K. Das)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
..KL
3