COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, LUDHIANA Vs. NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revenue is in appeal raising the following substantial questions of law arising out of the order dated 13.7.2015, passed by the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Appeal No. 1150/2008:

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that while adjudicating the show cause notices issued to the respondent, vide Order-inOriginal dated 30.9.1999, demand of Rs. 2,38,50,008/- was confirmed. The respondent preferred appeal before the Tribunal, however, during interregnum, the duty was deposited. The Tribunal, vide order dated 16.10.2003, remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority. Another set of show cause notices were disposed of by the adjudicating authority vide order dated 7.10.1998 raising a demand of Rs. 97,57,049.63.

(3.) It was further submitted that vide order dated 31.3.2008, the Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Ludhiana (for short, 'the Commissioner'), levied interest on delayed payment of the duty for the period from the dates when first Orders-in-Original were passed on 7.10.1998 and 30.9.1999, till its payment. The Tribunal has wrongly set aside the demand of interest placing reliance upon an earlier order passed by the Tribunal in Aeons Construction Products Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chennai, 2005 184 ELT 120 . The submission is that the aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the facts of the case, where the order passed by the adjudicating authority was set aside and the matter was remanded back for fresh determination. In the case in hand, the levy of duty as such was not disputed by the respondent. The matter was remanded back only for some calculation purposes. In terms of the provisions of Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, 'the Act'), the interest is leviable from the date demand was raised originally and not from a subsequent date. Period of three months is provided therefrom. In the case in hand, the fact that duty was payable is not even disputed by the respondent, as the same was paid before even the cases were decided after remand.