Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 62 - AT - Central ExciseLevy of interest on the differential duty paid during the relevant period - issuance of supplementary invoices enhancing the value declared at the time of clearance of the goods - suppression of facts - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The issue has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE VERSUS M/S SKF INDIA LTD. [2009 (7) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it has been observed that at the time of sale the goods carried a higher value and those were cleared on short payment of duty. The differential duty was paid only later when the assessee issued supplementary invoices to its customers demanding the balance amounts. Seen thus it was clearly a case of short payment of duty though indeed completely unintended and without any element of deceit etc. The payment of differential duty thus clearly came 13 under sub-section (2B) of section 11A and attracted levy of interest under section 11AB of the Act. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant on payment of differential duty on the supplementary invoices due to revision in prices invariably reflected the same in their ER1 returns filed with the department from time-to-time. Thus, calling for the data by the Revenue again which already mentioned in the respective ER-1 Returns and non-furnishing of the same by the appellant in time, cannot be held as a ground to uphold the suppression of facts in the form of data from the knowledge of the department - it has been observed that on declaration of the differential duty paid by reflecting the same in the relevant monthly returns filed with the department from time-to-time, would not fall within the scope of suppression of fact and accordingly, extended period of limitation was set aside in those cases. With regard to applicability of period of limitation for recovery of interest incorporated at sub-section (15) in Section 11A of CEA, 1944 with effect from 08.4.2011, the demand of interest can be sustained only for the normal period. The impugned order is modified to the extent of confirming recovery of interest for the normal period. Since there is no suppression of fact, the imposition of penalty, in the circumstances of the case, is not warranted. Appeal allowed in part.
|