TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Hon’ble Supreme Court. - A principle laid down or a ratio laid down in the case of transaction between two parties by the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be applied to a situation where the law is amended with retrospective effect by the legislature. - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/25/2008-SM - Final Order No. 20086/2014 - Dated:- 22-1-2014 - Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) Shri M.A. Narayana, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S. Teli, Deputy Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The issue involved in this appeal is the date from which the interest under Section 11AB is to be calculated in the case of demand of differential duty on the product Refined Edible Oil (hereinafter also referred to as the said go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 1502.00, 1503.00, 1504.00, and 1508.90 labelling, relabelling of containers and repacking from bulk packs to retail packs or the adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer shall amount to manufacture . With the introduction of this note, a levy of 8% was prescribed against these two entries. Simultaneously under Notification No. 6/2002 as amended, an effective rate of nil was prescribed on all goods other than Refined Oils falling under these entries thereby subjecting the Refined Oil to a levy of duty. Further, the Hon ble Minister of Finance also in his speech had specifically mentioned about this new levy being introduced on Refined Oils . However, the benefit of general small scale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chapter 15 of the tariff with retrospective effect from 1-3-1986 rendered the said processes as amounting to manufacture from 1-3-1986. 1.7 Thereafter proceedings were initiated and in the impugned order learned Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a view that interest is payable from 1st April 2003, the date on which the appellant became liable to pay the differential duty which has not been contested. The only question that requires to be decided is whether the appellant is liable to pay interest from 1st April 2003 or from 1st July 2005, the date on which the Note 5 became part of the Act. 2. The learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara [2010 (253) E.L.T. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being fixed by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, from the first date of the month succeeding the month in which the duty ought to have been paid under this Act, or from the date of such erroneous refund, as the case may be, but for the provisions contained in sub-section (2), or sub-section (2B), of Section 11A till the date of payment of such duty. From the reading of the Section and the decision cited by the learned counsel it becomes quite clear that the liability for interest arises from the first day of the succeeding month in which the duty ought to have been paid. In this case in my opinion, the differential duty became payable only after Note 5 was given retrospective effect and introduced as part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of deceit etc. The payment of differential duty thus clearly came under sub-section (2B) of Section 11A and attracted levy of interest under Section 11AB of the Act. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned AR. In the case of transaction between two parties, at the time of removal of the goods, if the parties to that transaction are not sure as to what exactly should be the price at the time of removal, provided for change in such value. Even otherwise sometime subsequently the escalation in cost is claimed on the basis of the price of raw-material or labour charges as mutually agreed upon between the two parties. Invariably such revision of price whether it is upward or downward would always be based on certain fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
