The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise against a Final Order of the CETAT, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, was dismissed as withdrawn following instructions provided in Circular No. I/10/10/2016 Legal.
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1939 of 2009 was dismissed as withdrawn.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 6/10/2017
C O R A M
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1939 of 2009
The Commissioner of Central Excise
Chennai IV Commissionerate
MHU Complex
No.692 Anna Salai
Nandanam
Chennai 600 035. ... Appellant
Vs
1. M/s. FAL Industries
Facit Avenue
Perungudi
Chennai 600 096.
2. Customs Excise & Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal
South Zonal Bench
Shastri Bhawan Annexe
First Floor, No.26 Haddows Road
Chennai 600 006. ..Respondents
(R-2 given up)
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to set aside the Final Order No.23/2009 dated 1/1/2009 passed by the second respondent Tribunal.
This Appeal has been filed against the Final Order No.23 of 2009, dated 1/1/2009, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Chennai.
“Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the second respondent Tribunal is correct in holding that there is no provision in the statute for enabling recovery of interest in the case of delay in reversal/payment of duty relatable to inputs removed as such, when there is express provisions in Section 11 AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 12 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002, providing for recovery of interest when the conditions specified therein are satisfied?”
1 issue framed by the court
Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the tribunal is correct in holding there is no provision for recovery of interest in delayed reversal/payments of duty relatable to inputs removed as su
2 provisions across 1 enactments
The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai IV
M/s. FAL Industries
Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench
S. Manikumar
R. Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
