Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
Jayshree Timber Products, Unit Ii vs Commr. Of Central Excise on 4 November, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004(91)ECC648, 2004(165)ELT366(TRI-KOLKATA)
JUDGMENT Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. As per facts on record, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellants for recovery of higher notional credit to the tune of Rs. 6,49,811.25. The said show-cause notice was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner vide his Order dated 31.3.93. The said order of the Assistant Commissioner was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and thereafter the appellants filed an appeal before the Tribunal on 15.5.95. During the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, the appellant deposited the amount in question.
2. Thereafter, they were issued a show-cause notice on 13.5.96 proposing confirmation of interest in terms of the provisions of Section 11AA. The appellants contended that the matter was pending before the Tribunal and as such proposal to confirm the interest amount, when the dispute relating to the principal amount has not been settled, was not in accordance with law. The Assistant Commissioner, however, confirmed the interest amount vide his Order dated 8.9.98.
3. It is seen that the appellants' appeal against the main order disallowing the modvat credit was finally decided by Tribunal on 26th April 1998, rejecting same. As such, the Commissioner Appeals vide her impugned order has held that the interest amount after a period of three months from the date of enactment of Section 11AA till the date of payment was justified. The said order is impugned before us.
4. Shri S.K. Roychowdhury, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the show-cause notice proposing to confirm interest was raised when the matter was pending before the Tribunal and as such the same was pre-mature. He also submits that there was no proposal in the original show-cause notice to confirm the interest amount. However, we do not find any merits in the above contention of the appellants. Admittedly, in the original show-cause notice, no proposal to confirm interest was there inasmuch as Section 11AA was enacted subsequently and as such there cannot be any proposal to that effect under Section 11AA. Similarly, it is seen that the appellants' appeal before the Tribunal has since been rejected. In terms of the provisions of Section 11AA, The appellants are required to pay the interest in respect of the confirmed demand. The Commissioner has rightly held that the demand of interest would start from the period after three months from the date of enactment of Section 11AA till the payment of duty. There is no infirmity in the above views of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, we reject the appeals filed by the appellants.