CCE Vs. LUCAS TVS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has set aside the liability to interest of an amount of Rs. 40,21,272/ - covering the period 26.8.1995 to 31.3.2001.

(2.) WE have heard both sides. Vide orders dated 9.1.1995 and 10.2.1995 demand of over Rs. 34 lakhs was determined against the assessees. The demands were set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 20.6.1995. The Order -in -Appeal was set aside by the Tribunal and the case was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) by Tribunal's Final Order dated 24.1.1997. The demand was re -confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 26.12.2000. It is the contention of the Revenue that since the demand of Rs. 34 lakhs earlier confirmed vide order dated 9.1.1995 and 10.2.1995, although set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 20.6.1995, was restored by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 26.12.2000, the determination of duty has taken effect in January and February itself and therefore, due to delay in payment of duty the assessees are liable to pay interest. However, we agree with the submission made by the learned Counsel for the respondents that as the demand was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 20.6.95, the determination can be said to have made only on 26.12.2000 with the passing of the fresh order of the Commissioner (Appeals), applying the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Blue Star and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. reported in, 2009 TIOL 659 HC MUM. The relevant paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 of the High Court's order is reproduced herein below.