Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (10) TMI 746

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the present case, the appellant was not liable to pay the interest but he paid the interest in order to settle the audit objection and the same was paid before the issuance of the show-cause notice. The appellants are liable to pay interest on the differential duty liability amounting to ₹ 3,77,833/-. For quantification of the interest on this amount, adjudicating authority will compute the interest liability of the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/1247/2004-DB - Final Order No. 22342/2017 - Dated:- 25-9-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Ashok K. Arya, Technical Member Shri G. Shivadass and Shri Shyed Peeran, Advocates For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish, Dy. Commissioner ( AR ) For the R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n by the department relating to costing methodology adopted by the Appellant, the Appellant paid differential duty demanded to avoid litigation and filed revised price declaration on basis of the audit note. Similarly, the Appellant filed price declaration on 24.04.2000 with effect from 24.04.2000 for parts and accessories of motor vehicles and internal combustion engine. 2.3. The Appellant was informed by the department vide letter dated 12.10.2000 that as per the amended Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, the assessable value of the good captively consumed shall be 115% of the cost of manufacture requiring a revised price declaration duly supported by Cost Accountant certificate. The Appellant duly filed the revised price declaratio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dated 19.12.2001 Thereafter, the Appellant filed refund application dated 30.09.2002 for refund of interest paid under protest. A show cause notice dated 08.01.2003 was issued by the Asst. Commissioner proposing to reject the refund claim and appropriate the interest paid as per Rule 173G (1)(d) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2.6. After following the due process of law, the original authority vide Order-in-Original dt. 28/03/2003 confirmed the demand by holding that the appellant is liable to pay interest under Rule 173G(1)(d) of the Rules. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who dismissed the appeal of the appellant. Hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perus .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ose cases involving fraud, collusion etc. and that too only when duty has been determined under Section 11A(2). He further submitted that in the present case, the payment was made after the audit objections was raised but before the issuance of show-cause notice or adjudication in terms of Section 11A and therefore duty was not determined under Section 11A(2). He also submitted that w.e.f. 11/05/2011, Section 11AB was amended to provide that interest would be levied from the first day of the month succeeding the month in which duty ought to have been paid. The requirement of fraud, collusion was dispensed with and interest was payable even in cases of voluntary payment made prior to show-cause notice. However, Section 11AB(2) provided that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 11AA or 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. We also find that Section 11AB was amended from 11/05/2011 whereby it has been provided that interest would be liable from the first day of the month succeeding the month in which duty ought to have been paid. The period involved in the present case is prior to the amendment dt. 11/05/2001. Therefore in the present case, the appellant was not liable to pay the interest but he paid the interest in order to settle the audit objection and the same was paid before the issuance of the show-cause notice. Learned counsel also submitted that it is now a well settled law that duty short paid has to be adjusted against duty excess paid and the interest liability has to be computed only after netting of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates