- (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: (i) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal has committed an error while not accepting the contention of revenue that the relevant date for calculation of interest would be the date on which "an amount of duty is first determined to be payable" as per the Explanation 1 to Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as existing during the relevant period (ii) Whether reduction in the amount of duty, whether made by the Tribunal itself or by the Original Adjudicating Authority on the directions of Tribunal, will affect the date of first determination of duty, but would only affect the quantum of duty payable by the party and the respondent is liable to pay the interest on delayed discharge of Central Excise liability under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (iii) Whether the interest is chargeable from the date of original adjudication order or from the date of issuance of the adjudication orders in de-novo proceedings, once the demand of duty was upheld by the Tribunal but only the quantum of duty was ordered to be re-adjudicated in de-novo proceedings (iv) Whether the revenue is entitled to claim duty in the facts and circumstances of the present case -
(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. In that case also, in appeal filed by the respondent, the Tribunal remanded the matter back. After the remand, orders were passed on 27.2.2004 and 5.3.2004 re-determining the demand at Rs. 90,03,543/- and Rs. 2,31,12,248/- against Rs. 97,57,049.63 and Rs. 2,38,50,008/-, respectively.
(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.;