TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per]- These two appeals are directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. .PI/BBP/128 129/07 dated 20.9.2007 vide which, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the orders-in-original to the extent that they are not imposed interest on the appellant subsequent to the finalization of provisional assessment. Since the issue involved in both the cases are identical these two appeals are being disposed off by a common order. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the appellant obtained permission from the department for provisional assessment in respect of clearances affected by them to their sister units. The said provisional assessments were finalized by the adjudicating authority by orders-in-original dt. 28.3.2007 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al year 2004-05 the assessments were finalized say in June, 2005 and short payment of duty of say Rs. 10,000/- was determined. The expression "month for which", will mean the month for which provisional assessment was resorted to i.e. September,2004. Therefore interest will start accruing from 1.10.04 till the date of payment. If the payment was made after finalization of the assessment say on 17.7.05 then the interest will be calculated for the period 1.10.04 to 17.7.05. If the short payment was made before finalization of the assessment say on 15.1.05 then the interest will be calculated for the period 1.10.04 to 15.1.05. In other words the date of order of the finalization of provisional assessment is not relevant. This is so becau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the preceding paragraph". Against the above said order, the Learned Counsel would point out the issue of charging of the interest after the finalization of provisional assessment under Rule 7(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is now settled law by the following decisions of the Tribunal:- (i) Ispat Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur [2007 (209) E.LT. 280 (Tri.-Mumbai)] (ii) MSEB Pole Factory vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. (Appeals), Aurangabad [2005 (187) E.L.T. 209 (Tri.-Mumbai)] (iii) M/s. J. K. Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mysore [2006-TIOL-1341-CESTAT-Bang] 3. The Ld. JDR on the other hand emphasised that Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly pointed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce, the very same issue which is before me, have been addressed specifically by division bench and other co-ordinate bench, the question referring the matter the Larger Bench does not arise. Hence the submission made by the Ld. JDR to refer the matter the Larger Bench is rejected. 5. It is not in dispute that the appellants herein had discharged the differential duty payable by them before the finalization of the provisional assessment. If that be so, all the decisions of the Tribunal as cited by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant would clearly apply in this case. 6. Respectfully following the said decisions, I find that the impugned order directing the appellant to pay the interest on the finalization of the provisional assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
