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 →

CCE (ST) LTU, Chennai Versus M/s. Tube Products of India

2016 (3) TMI 133 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Interest on differential duty demanded - Held that:- From the reading of the Rule 7 (4) of CENTRAL EXCISE RULES, 2002 it is seen that interest is payable only when any amount is payable consequent to the order for final assessment. When no amount is to be paid consequent to the order of final assessment, sub-rule 4 is not attracted at all.

As decided in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. CTO [1944 (5) TMI 21 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] so long as the assessee pays the tax which according to him i .....

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 to hold that the law envisages the assessee to predicate the final assessment and expect him to pay the tax on that basis to avoid the liability to pay interest. That would be asking him to do the near impossible. - Decided against revenue - E/40119/2014 & E/40573/2014 - FINAL ORDER NO: 40284-40285/2016 - Dated:- 18-2-2016 - SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Petitioner : Shri. K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) For the Respondent : Shri R. Raghavan, Adv. ORDER Since the issue involved in 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

. E/40573/2014 is 2008 -2009 and the period involved in appeal No. E/40119/2014 is 2010-11. E/40573/2014 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The provisional assessment for the period 2008-09 was finalized by the adjudicating authority on 07.09.2010, wherein differential duty paid was appropriated. The differential duty amount of ₹ 95,95,137/- was paid by the respondent on 30.04.2010, before the finalization order was passed. Interest of ₹ 20,53,468/- was demanded in terms .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

C(RF) dated 30.03.2012. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent assesse filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide his Order-In-Appeal dated 02.01.2014, held that the assesse is not liable to pay the interest as they have paid the entire differential duty prior to finalization of provisional assessment and accordingly they are eligible for refund of the interest paid. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e provisional assessment for the year 2011-2012 was also finalized on 27.09.2012 and the differential duty of ₹ 24,86,881/- was paid on 27.06.2012. Interest was demanded on the differential amount in terms of Rule 7(4) of Central Excise Rules, 2004. The assesse being aggrieved by the orders passed by the lower appellate authority preferred appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) against the above two Order-in-Originals (i) No. LTUC/322/2011-DC dated 15.09.2011 and (ii) No. LTUC/315/20 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

peal and findings of the lower appellate authority and relied on the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of BHEL Vs. CCE, Kanpur - 2015-TIOL-1949 (All-HC). . He further submits that interest is payable from the date on which the duty amount is due as per Rule 7(4) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Accordingly, interest is payable from the first day of the month succeeding the month for which such amount is determined, till the date of payment thereof . He relied on the decis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e the order of the Lower Adjudicating Authority. 6. Ld. Counsel, Shri Raghavan Ramabhadran, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent assessee submits that Rule 7(4) envisages liability of interest only if the differential duty is paid after passing of the order of the provisional assessment. He further submits that in this case, differential duty was not due at all on the date of assessment by the Asst. Commissioner and hence liability of interest does not arise. He further submits that i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

562 (Tri.-Mum.) 2. CCE, Pune Vs. Tata Motors Ltd.- (Appeal No. 54/2011/Bom.) 3. Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune - 2011 (269) ELT 415 (Tri.-Mum.) 7. After hearing both sides and on going through the records, I find that both the appeals relate to demand of interest and whether the respondent assesse is required to pay interest on differential duty. Before proceeding further, we need to go through Rule 7 (4) of CENTRAL EXCISE RULES, 2002, which is reproduced as under:- (4) The assessee shall be li .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

final assessment, sub-rule 4 is not attracted at all. 8. Reference to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. CTO - 1994 (4) SCC 276 would be relevant while considering the interest provision in the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, the Hon ble Supreme Court held as follows:- 17. Therefore, so long as the assesse pays the tax which according to him is due on the basis of information supplied in the return filed by him, there would be no default on his part to .....

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