Chandigarh vs M/S Nachiketa Papers Ltd
- CitationAppeal No.E/2606/2006-EX(DB); E/CROSS/245/2006
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act as it stood before 11.05.2001, interest on a short-paid or unpaid duty was payable only where the shortfall arose by reason of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, or contravention of the provisions of the Act with intent to evade duty; where none of these ingredients is present, no interest is chargeable for the relevant period.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of OIA No.324/CE/CHD/2006, dt.28.04.2006, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Chandigarh]
Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax,
Chandigarh Appellant
Vs
M/s Nachiketa Papers Ltd. Respondent
Represented by:
For Revenue : Shri Yashpal Sharma, Authorised Representative.
For Assessee: Shri A.S. Gill, Advocate
For approval and signature:
Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial)
Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Honble Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No
Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT
(Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen
the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes
authorities?
CORAM:
MR. P.K. DAS, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
MR. P.S. PRUTHI, HONBLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision:22.01.2015
Final Order No.51105/2015
Per: P.K. Das
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the demand of interest was set aside.
2. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the Adjudicating Authority has observed that interest under Section 11AB, as it existed prior to 11.05.2001 was payable only if the duty was short paid or not paid by reason of fraud, collusion, or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of various provisions of the Act. It is further observed that these ingredients are not available in the present case, therefore, interest is not payable for the period October 1999 to December 1999. We find that the Revenue has not disputed this fact in the grounds of appeal.
3. In view of that, we do not find any reason to interfere the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. The cross objection gets disposed of.
(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)
(P.S. Pruthi) (P.K. Das)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
cbb
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free