TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 933X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/1113 & 1115/2008 - A/61160-61161/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 12-4-2017 - Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Sh. Amrinder Singh, Advocate for the Appellant Sh. V. Gupta, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per: Devender Singh The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is the manufacturer of P P Medicaments. After the close of accounting year for the period January, 2004 to December, 2004 (In Appeal No.E/1113/2008) and January, 2005 to December, 2005 (In Appeal No.E/1115/2008) the appellant on the basis of their cost audit calculated the value on the basis of actual cost of production which was higher than the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07) ELT 282 (P H). 4. Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. Vs. CCE 2013 (297) ELT 332 (Del.). He also argued that the situation was revenue neutral as the goods were cleared to their sister unit and their sister unit has been availing Cenvat Credit of the duty paid at the time of removal of the goods as also of the duty paid subsequently. He also stated that the issue is covered by their own case decided on the same facts vide Final Order No.54220/2015-SM[BR] dt. 20.11.2015. 4. The Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings in the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and pointed out that since it was a case of delayed payment of the duty, the interest was payable by the appellants. He relied upon the following case laws:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount should also apply to the claim of interest thereon. The said decision has been followed by the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CCE Vs. VAE VKN Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held as below:- 6. There is no dispute that assessee has paid the differential duty on supplementary invoices regularly and has shown the same in the ER-I returns, which were filed regularly before the department, therefore, issuance of show cause notice for interest on the delayed payment should also be within a period of one year as stipulated under Section 11A of the Act. Therefore, department has absolutely no jurisdiction to issue show cause notice after expiry of the period of limitation for interest on the del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
