TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at this stage, it is prudent to remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the issue of liability of interest on the differential duty paid subsequent to the revision of prices, on the basis of the outcome of the pending reference before the Larger Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal Nos. E/3, 1245-1248/2010 - A/85599-85603/2019 - Dated:- 27-3-2019 - DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. C.J. MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For Assessee: None For Revenue: Shri Anil Chaudhary, D.C. Shri Ajay Kumar, A.C.-ARs. ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra None present for the Appellants. Heard the learned A.R. for the Revenue. 2. All these appeals are filed against the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd Vs CCE Raipur 2015 (226) ELT 450 (SC) expressing doubt over the judgment of co-ordinate Bench in the case of C.C.E. Pune Vs. SKF India Ltd 2009 (229) ELT 385 (SC). They have further submitted that this Tribunal, taking note of the said reference to Larger Bench by the Hon ble Supreme Court, in the past has remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority vide Order No.A/88290/17/SMB dt.28.06.2017 and No.A/88951/17/SMB dt.21.07.2017 to decide the cases on the basis of out come of the reference before the Hon ble Supreme Court. 5. The learned A.R. for the Revenue has submitted that the Appellants had not resorted to the provisional assessment under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. They have paid appropriate duty at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al duty. The customers availed credit on such supplementary invoices. The Revenue has demanded interest under sub-section (2B) of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. 7. The learned Commissioner relying on the principle of law laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E. Pune Vs SKF India Ltd 2009 (229) ELT 385 (SC), observed that the Appellants are required to discharge interest for the delayed period. In SKF India Ltd case, the Hon ble Supreme Court was confronted more or less a similar situation wherein the Respondent-Assessee in that case was engaged in the manufacture of sale of ball bearings and textile machinery parts. Initially, the goods manufactured were sold at certain price on payment of Excise duty and l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion (2B) of Section 11A provides that the assessee in default may, before the notice issued under sub-section (1) is served on him, make payment of the unpaid duty on the basis of his own ascertainment or as ascertained by a Central Excise Officer and inform the Central Excise Officer in writing about the payment made by him and in that event he would not be given the demand notice under sub-section (1). But Explanation 2 to the sub-section makes it expressly clear that such payment would not be exempt from interest chargeable under Section 11AB, that is, for the period from the first date of the month succeeding the month in which the duty ought to have been paid till the date of payment, of the duty. What is stated in Explanation 2 to su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces of goods sold earlier. In M/s. Rucha Engineering the High Court observed as follows: It is evident that the Section (11AB) comes into play if the duty paid/levied is short. Both, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the CESTAT have observed that the Assessee paid the duty on its own accord immediately when the revised rates became known to them from their customers. The differential duty was due at that time i.e. when the revised rates applicable with retrospective effect were learnt by the Assessee, which was much after the clearance of the goods and therefore, question of payment of interest does not arise as the duty was paid as soon as it was learnt that it was payable. Finding that provisions of Section 11A (2) and 11A (2B) were not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants in their written submissions argued that the ratio laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in SKF India Ltd case has been doubted by subsequent Division Bench of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd Vs CCE Raipur 2015 (226) ELT 450 (SC). Consequently, their Lordships referred the matter to the Larger Bench observing as follows:- 27. We have kept in mind the aforesaid consideration and feel that decision in SKF and International Auto requires a re-look for the reasons given by us above. We, thus, direct the Registry to place the matter before the Hon ble Chief Justice of India for constituting a Larger Bench to go into the issue involved in this case which is a seminal importance having far reaching rami ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
