Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 1300 - CESTAT CHANDIGARHInterest on differential duty by invoking extended period of limitation - suppression of facts or not - Impugned order passed by not properly appreciating the facts and the law - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The appellant deposited the duty on supplementary invoices as and when the supplementary invoices were issued. It is also found that the appellant has deposited the interest under protest and has submitted that in the present case invoking the extended period of limitation to demand the interest alleging suppression is not sustainable because during the relevant period there were divergent views on the issue of liability of interest on payment of central excise duty while issuing supplementary invoices under the Central Excise Act, 1944. This Tribunal in the case of SUPER THREADING INDIA PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CE & ST, LUDHIANA [2021 (5) TMI 907 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] and M/S. KEC INTERNATIONAL LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR [2022 (3) TMI 692 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] had held that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked as there is no fraud/mis-statement with intent to evade payment of duty. Thus, invoking the extending period of limitation is not sustainable and the demand of interest by invoking the extended period of limitation is not justified and the same is set aside by remanding the matter to the Original authority to re-quantify the demand only for the normal period and any amount deposited over and above the normal period of one year should be returned back to the appellant as he has paid the entire disputed demand of interest under protest. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
|