Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 330 - CESTAT MUMBAIDemand of Interest - amount received in terms of price variation clause for which the appellant has issued supplementary invoices - HELD THAT:- The issue is no longer res integra and has been decided by and is now covered by the decision of the Larger Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. [2019 (5) TMI 657 - SUPREME COURT]. Reference was made to the Larger Bench vide order reported at [2015 (12) TMI 594 - SUPREME COURT] doubting the correctness of earlier orders passed in the case of SKF India Ltd. [2009 (7) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT] and International Auto Ltd. [2010 (1) TMI 151 - SUPREME COURT]. The Larger Bench considered the issue and has held that The fact that it is known, later cannot detract from the fact, that the later discovered price would not be value at the time of removal. Most significantly, Section 11A and Section 11AB as it stood at the relevant time did not provide read with the rules any other point of time when the amount of duty could be said to be payable and so equally the interest. Since the issue is squarely the same, there is found no justification to allow the appeal filed by the appellant, even though the same has been dismissed without consideration of the issue on merits for the reason that it was filed beyond the prescribed period for which the Commissioner (Appeals) could have condoned the delay. Appeal dismissed.
|