M/S Kaira Can Company Ltd vs Commissioners Of Central Excise

[ Arising out of OIA-COMMR-A-/194/VDR-I/2007 dtd 26.9.2007 Passed by Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-VADODARA-I ]

M/s Kaira Can Company Ltd - Appellant(s)

Vs

Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-VADODARA-I - Respondent (s)

Represented by :

For Assessee : Shri Nirav Shah, Advocate For Revenue : Shri J Nair, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical)

1 Whether Press Reporter 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 CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

No 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

CORAM :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing / Decision : 8/9/2015

ORDER No. A/11325 / 2015 dtd 8/9/2015

Per : Mr.P.K. Das,

After hearing both sides and on perusal of records, we find that the appellants filed this appeal against the demand of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act 1944. The Adjudicating Authority dropped the demand of interest and imposed penalty of Rs 10,000/-. The Revenue filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed Revenue appeal.

2. The main contention of the Learned Advocate is that the demand of interest was not quantified in the show cause notice and therefore, such show cause notice has no validity. He relied upon the decision of Honble High Court in the case of M/ Durga Works Vs Asstt. Collector of CE  1992.62.ELT.375 (Kar). By show cause notice dtd 6.3.2006, demand of interest was raised for the period 18.12.2000 to 31.5.2002 which is barred by limitation. He relied upon the decision of the Honble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Kwality Ice Cream Company Vs UOI  2012.27.STR.8 (Del.) . The Learned Advocate fairly submits that they have already paid the duty, which they are not contesting.

3. On the other hand, the Learned Authorized Representative for Revenue submits that the demand of interest would be Rs 8,03,371/- as per letter dtd 3.8.2015 of the Dy. Commissioner (R ) Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Anand.

4. We find that the Honble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Kwality Ice Cream Company (supra), held that period of limitation prescribed for claim of principal amount should also apply to the claim for interest thereon. In view of that, the Commissioner (Appeals) is required to examine as to whether the demand of interest is barred by limitation in the light of the decision of the Honble High Court.

5. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide all issues afresh in accordance with law. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed by way of remand,

Dictated and pronounced in the Court)

(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

swami ??

??

??

??

2