Page 166 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

388 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

7. In Section 11BB, to clarify the rate of interest in the range of 5% to
30%, the statute itself has empowered the Central Government to fix any rate of
interest for the time being by way of a notification. This clarifies that once there is
a notification of Central Government fixing 6% as the rate of interest same has to
be followed as having power of statute. Thus, it is clear that previous final order
of this Bench has apparent error on face of its record. The error of adjudication
which is very much apparent irrespective once committed cannot be repeated.
Again having a look to ITC (supra) and M/s. Govind Mills (supra), it is observed
that for the period in ITC (supra) the impugned notification was not applicable
and Govind Mills (supra) has absolutely relied upon ITC (supra) being, absolute-
ly, silent to the notification. Contrary thereto, High court of Madras as well as
that of Karnataka, it only has been held that the notifications have been issued
under the provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act determining the rate of
interest, the rate as mentioned in the notification shall only be admissible to the
assessee. The case law as relied upon for the purpose are C. Padmini Chinnadurai
v. Assistant Commissioner Central Excise, Tirunelveli - 2010 (257) ELT 538 (Mad.)
and Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Hindustan Granites reported as
(2015) 323 E.L.T. 708 (Kar.).
8. In view of the entire above discussion, I hereby take a different view
than the previous decision of this Bench and dismiss the appeal.
(Pronounced in the open Court on 13-11-2019)
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 388 (Tri. - Bang.)
IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE
[COURT NO. I]
S/Shri S.S. Garg, Member (J) and P. Anjani Kumar, Member (T)
A.R. TRADING COMPANY
Versus
COMMR. OF C. EX. (APPEALS-II), BANGALORE
Final Order No. A/21296/2019, dated 20-12-2019 in Appeal No. E/686/2009-DB
Polypropylene Multi-Filament Yarn (PPMF) - Test report of Chemical
Examiner identified the impugned goods to be Polypropylene Multi-Filament
Yarn which is further corroborated by the statement of the proprietor of appel-
lant co. - Synthetic filament yarn manufactured by appellant classifiable under
Tariff Item 5402 59 10 of Central Excise Tariff from 2005-06 - However, Chemi-
cal Examiner’s report 29-9-2006 can be applied only prospectively but not ret-
rospectively. [paras 6.1, 6.2]
Demand - Limitation - Extended period - Suppression of facts - De-
partment totally aware of the activities of appellants Department being in-
formed by appellants about their intention to claim exemption under Notifica-
tion No. 7/2003-C.E. - Test conducted in 2003 when found to be in favour of
appellants, department free to get another test conducted in 2005 also - This
having not done, extended period not invokable - Suppression of fact cannot
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  166