By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, MAR 30, 2017: THE appellant was issued letters dated 18/19.07.2005 and 11.08.2005 by the Jt. Commissioner/Additional Commissioner, Central Excise Recovery, Mumbai-I Commissionerate. These letters communicated the certificate issued under Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962 for recovery of the dues pertaining to Bangalore Commissionerate against a confirmed demand. Interest recovery is also proposed.

Against these "letters" the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed the same holding that the appellants have not appealed against notice issued by the Bangalore Commissionerate.

Aggrieved, the appellant has filed appeal before the CESTAT.

None appeared on behalf of the respondent on the hearing date.

The AR submitted that the letters issued by the Mumbai Commissionerate are only communicating the recovery action initiated by the Bangalore Commissionerate against a confirmed demand; that unless and until the main demand is either set aside or annulled, the recovery is inevitable, therefore, these letters cannot be appealed against.

The Bench observed –

++ In the Bangalore Commissionerate demand of excise duty was confirmed in adjudication and the same was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals); accordingly the demand attained finality. Thereafter the Bangalore Commissionerate issued a certificate in terms of Rule 3 of Customs (Attachment of property of defaulters for Recovery of Govt. Dues) Rules, 1995.

++ The subject letters which were challenged by the appellant are nothing but only communication of the action being taken by the Bangalore Commissionerate through Mumbai Commissionerate. In our considered view, these actions does not warrant for any appeal for reason that once the demand stand confirmed the appellant has to pay the dues and after the demand attained finality, the only option for the appellant is to pay the dues.

++ Once the demand of duty is confirmed, there is a statutory provision for recovery of interest on the confirmed demand in terms of Section 11AA/11AB then interest is unavoidably payable. Even for recovery of interest, no show-cause notice is required. As the statutory provisions mandate for payment of interest.The interest is piggyback of the duty demand, it goes hand in hand. Therefore, in our view, for the purpose of demand of interest no separate proceedings are required.

Holding that the appeal is not sustainable, the same was dismissed.

(See 2017-TIOL-1035-CESTAT-MUM)