Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Pahwa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Delhi-Iv on 25 September, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM,
NEW DELHI-110066
COURT NO. III
Central Excise appeal No. E/3740/2006-Ex[DB]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.77/ce/Appl/DLH-IV/2006 dated 26.10.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-I, Faribabad]
Date of Hearing/decision: 25th September, 2013
1
Whether Press Reporters 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 the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
Yes
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
M/s. Pahwa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Appellants
Vs.
CCE, Delhi-IV Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate Present for the Respondent : Shri U.K. Srivastava, A.R. Coram: Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member;
Honble Shri Manmohan Singh, Technical Member FINAL ORDER NO.57973/2013 Per Archana Wadhwa:
After hearing both sides we find that show cause notices were issued to the appellants for the period April, 1998 to September, 1999 proposing confirmation of demand of duty on the ground of use of brand name of another person. The said show cause notices culminated into an order passed by the lower authorities confirming demand of duty and imposition of penalty. However, no interest was confirmed against the appellant in the said order.
2. The said orders were put to challenge by the appellant before higher authorities and the demands stand confirmed against them. It is also on record that the matter travelled up to the Honble Supreme Court, without any success. Subsequently, recovery notices for confirmation of interest amount on the said confirmed demands were issued by the jurisdictional authority on 27.2.2006. The same were challenged by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals), who held that inasmuch as demand stand confirmed against the appellant and interest being appendices to the demand has to be confirmed. Accordingly, he rejected their appeal. However, he modified quantum of interest required to be paid by the appellants. The said order is challenged before Tribunal.
3. The short question required to be decided in the present appeal is as to whether interest raised in the year 2006 in respect of demands belonging to 1998-99, which were confirmed long ago, would attract the limitation or not. If limitation is held to be applicable to the demand of interest, the same would admittedly be barred by limitation.
4. At this stage we take note of various decisions of the Honble High Courts. Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CCE vs. Vae VKN Industries Pvt. Ltd. vide their order dated 17.4.2012 has held that in view of decision of Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Kwality Ice Cream Company & Anrs. Vs. UOI and Ors. Decided on 18.1.2012, the period of limitation, which apply to claim for the principal amount should also apply to the claim of interest. In fact, we find that the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. held to the contrary but the said decision of the Tribunal stands reversed by the Honble Delhi High Court in their recent judgement reported as Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. vs. CCE, 2013-TIOL-631-HC-DEL-CX. As such we find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellants laying down that the period of limitation would apply to the demand of interest. Inasmuch as interest demand has been made in the year 2006 pertaining to the period of 1998-99, we find no justification for confirmation of interest amount. We accordingly set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequently relief.
5. It is seen that during the course of arguments a suggestion was made to transfer the matter to Single Member Bench as only interest issue is involved and the quantum is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. However, we thought it fit to take up the appeal itself as the issue stands decided by the decision of Honble High Court and no elaborate arguments are required to be addressed by either side. Inasmuch as admittedly Division Bench can dispose of appeal falling within the jurisdiction of Single Member Bench, we had proceeded to decide the appeal itself.
6. Appeal is disposed in the above manner.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.)
(MANMOHAN SINGH) (ARCHANA WADHWA)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
RK
??
??
??
??
3