Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Bangalore-Ii vs M/S. Bpl Sanyo Technology Ltd on 4 April, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
E/10/2008
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 339/2003-CE dated 31/10.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore)
For approval and signature
Honble P.KARTHIKEYAN, Member (Technical).
_______________________________________________
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the :
Order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether the Honble Member wishes to see the fair :
copy of the Order.
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :
Departmental Authorities? ____________________________________________
CCE, Bangalore-II : Appellant
Vs.
M/s. BPL Sanyo Technology Ltd., : Respondents
Appearance Smt. R. Bhagyadevi, SDR, for the appellant None (written submission submitted) for the respondents CORAM Shri P. KARTHIKEYAN, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 04.04.08 Date of decision : 04.04.08 Final ORDER No.________/2008 Heard both sides.
2. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand of irregular credit of Rs.64,833/- and vacated penalties imposed under Rule 57AH and Section 11AC and interest demanded under Section 11 AB following settled law. The credit due was reversed before issue of Show Cause Notice. In the appeal filed by the revenue, the Commissioner has challenged a part of the order whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand of interest under Section 11AB. In the instant case, the appellants had irregularly availed the credit but reversed the same before issue of show cause notice. The reversal was subsequent to 11.5.2001. The revised provisions of Section 11AB were enacted on 11.5.2001. These provisions prescribed that in cases of delayed payment of duty/reversal of credit etc. the assessee has to pay interest for the delay. However, these provisions did not apply to the amounts of duty etc. that fell due before the proposed amendment to Section 11AB got the assent of the President. The President accorded assent to the amendment on 11.5.2001. The assessee had, in the instant case, took irregular credit prior to 11.5.2001. Therefore, the impugned amount of credit was due to be paid to the Government prior to 11.5.01. Therefore, the provisions relating to interest under amended section 11AB did not apply.
3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants had cited the following decisions of the Tribunal wherein the above view was held.
1. Modern Insulators Vs. CCE 2003 (176) ELT 144 (Tri.-Del.)
2. Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs. CCE 2004 (178) ELT 929 (Tri.-Mum.)
4. I find that the legal position is as canvassed by the party. Interest liability is not attracted for delayed payment of tax due before 11.05.01. Therefore appeals filed by the Revenue is devoid of merit. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
(Operative part of the order pronounced in open Court)
(P.KARTHIKEYAN) MEMBER(T)
BB
2