Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Versus Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Vadodara-I

2015 (9) TMI 92 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Demand of interest u/s 11AB on differential duty - Extended period of limitation - Held that:- The relevant date for demanding interest will have to be mutatis mutandis, one year from the date of payment of interest made under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, because on the date of payment of duty only the exact amount of interest, from the date of clearances to the date of payment of differential duty, can be calculated for the purpose of issuing a quantified demand on account of in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

which means both differential duty and interest cannot be demanded. Further, in view of Hon'ble Bombay High Courts order in the case of CCE Pune II Vs Siddheshwar Textile Mills Pvt.Ltd. (2014 (11) TMI 621 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) when duty demand itself is not sustainable on Revenue Neutrality, it will not be correct to demand interest on differential duty voluntarily paid by the Appellant. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.E/277/2009 - Order No. A/11166/2015 - Dated:- 5-8-2015 - Mr. H.K .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ty of ₹ 1,00,000.00 has also been imposed upon the Appellant under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Shri Willingdon Christian, (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the Appellant argued that show cause notice dt.21.07.2008, demanding interest for the clearances made during April to December 2006, is clearly time barred. He relied upon the following case laws:- i) GSFC Ltd Vs CCE Vadodara-I [2013 (289) ELT 489 (Tri-Ahmd)] ii) GSFC Ltd Vs CCE & ST, Vadodara-I [Order No.A/10539/2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d Vs CCE Jaipur-I [2003 (159) ELT 1046 (Tri-Del)] iv) CCE Jamshedpur Vs Jamshedpur Beverages [2007 (214) ELT 321 (SC)] 3. Shri Govind Jha (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that differential duty was paid on 06.08.2007 and show cause notice demanding interest was issued on 21.07.2008 which is well within one year from the date of payment of differential duty. That relevant date under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has to be mutatis mutandis read as date of payment of dif .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he case records. Appellant was supplying Caprolactum to their sister concern GSFC Fibre Unit at Kosamba for which duty was required to be discharged @ 110% of the cost of production under the Central Excise Valuation Rules. The duty was discharged on the basis of previous years cost data and subsequently CAS-4 certificate was produced by the Appellant for the relevant period. Differential duty of ₹ 82,52,210.00 was paid by the Appellant on 24.08.2007 for the clearances made during April 20 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on 20.09.2007.The demand SCN itself was clearly issued after a period of one year from the date of payment of differential duty. However, in the present case differential duty was paid on 06.08.2007 and show cause notice was issued on 21.07.2008 which is within a period of one year. Argument of the Appellant that period of one year should be calculated from the date of clearances is not correct because no return of payment of interest is required to be filed by Appellant as per Explanation-1(b)( .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as thus issued within a period of one year. 5. So far as non-payment of interest on account of Revenue Neutrality is concerned, learned Authorised Representative has relied upon the Order of CESTAT Mumbai in the case of Automotive Stampings & Assemblies Ltd Vs CCE Pune-I (supra) to argue that doctrine of Revenue Neutrality will not be applicable in this case. In this regard, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant has relied upon the case laws of CCE & C Vadodara-II Vs Inde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ows:- 8.The matter was carried by the Revenue against this Tribunals order in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court confirmed the Tribunals view by holding that if the Assessee carries out bleaching, dyeing, printing and mercerizing of textile fabrics, which would invite levy of excise duty on each stage of manufacture, however, if the Assessee is also entitled to Modvat credit on duty paid at each stage, then something which is required to be paid or remitted at the final stage could be set o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version