Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2021 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 116 - AT - Central ExciseDemand of differential duty - upward revision of price - price variation/escalation clause - Cenvat credit available at the time of raising supplementary invoices - appellant alleged that the supplementary invoices were raised and, therefore, they are relatable to the clearances already made during the previous months - Vires of proviso to Rule 3 (4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - interest under Section 11AB of CEA - HELD THAT:- The question as to whether the supplementary invoices relate to the date of original clearance or the date on which the supplementary invoice was raised has been decided by the Supreme Court in M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR [2019 (5) TMI 657 - SUPREME COURT]. Accordingly, interest under Section 11AB needs to be paid by the appellant on the differential amount of duty. Whether Cenvat credit can be utilized for payment of duty in view of the proviso to Rule 3 (4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? - HELD THAT:- The High Court of Gujarat in ADVANCE SURFACTANTS INDIA LTD VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2017 (8) TMI 594 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has held that this proviso is ultravires. No judgment of any other High Court or Supreme Court has been produced before us to show that a contrary view has been taken in respect of this proviso. Therefore, the appellant was correct in utilizing the Cenvat credit for payment of the excise duty. Levy of penalty - HELD THAT:- The assessee has not violated any provision of the Act or the Rules to attract penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant on its own had paid the differential duty on the supplementary invoices which were raised - the penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is set aside. Appeal allowed in part.
|