M/S.A.R.S.Metals (P) Limited vs The Additional Commissioner (Revision ... on 26 November, 2019
10. The petitioner also relies on a decision rendered by me in the case
of Indo Shell Mould Ltd. V. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) and another
(W.P.No.31819 of 2006 dated 17.09.2019), wherein the facts are
distinguishable. Though the petitioner in that case had availed of deferral
only for five months out of the entire period of deferral, interest was sought
to be levied under Section 24(3). However, the scheme of deferral had not
been cancelled in that petitioners' case. Thus, on the factual premise that
the scheme continued, though the petitioner had not availed the same for a
substantial portion of the scheme, I had set aside the levy of interest noting
6/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No.25368 of 2011
at paragraph 4 that it was undisputed that the petitioner was entitled to and
covered by the deferral scheme though it had not availed the benefit of the
same for a substantial portion of the scheme.