TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iability by raising supplementing voices and the finalization of provisional assessment was merely a confirmation of the differential duty leviable. Reliance placed in the case of CEAT Limited v, Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nashik [2015 (2) TMI 794 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], where it was held that The liability to pay interest arises on any amount payable to Central Government and consequent to order for final assessment under Rule 7 subrule (3). Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/85838/2015 - A/92041/2017 - Dated:- 15-9-2017 - Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Ms Manasi Patil, Advocate for appellant Shri Ajay Kumar, Additional Commissioner (AR) for respondent M/s Crompt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A plain reading of this provision does not confer jurisdiction to demand interest from the date of invoice. It would appear that the demand anticipated the amendment to the said sub-rule with effect from 1st March 2016 which could have an invoked in such circumstances. The appellant has discharged the liability to differential duty liability by raising supplementing voices and the finalization of provisional assessment was merely a confirmation of the differential duty leviable. This is apparent from the order of the original authority. 6. The decision of the Honble High Court of Bombay in re CEAT Limited which has held that 33. We find from a reading of this judgment that the conclusion in the Larger Bench decision of the Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as differential duty and prior to finalizing of the assessment, is not correct, accurate or proper computation of the liability. Having found that the final assessment resulted in nothing due and payable to the Government, we do not find any justification then to recover interest. If the interest was to be recovered and was indeed payable on the date on which the Assessee made payment of differential duty and prior to finalization of the assessment, then, the Rule would have specifically said so. In the absence of any such stipulation in the Rules the dictum in the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in J.K. Industries Ltd. would apply. If that principle can be applied, then, there was no liability to pay interest. If the liability to pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons. That is how both the judgments should have been read. If the Tribunal s conclusion is upheld, the Revenue would face proceedings for recovery of interest on the entitlement to refund in cases covered by Rule 7(5) of the Rules. If the differential duty paid and prior to finalization of assessment exceeds the duty leviable in law, then, on final assessment the Assessee is entitled to refund. He may interest on the sum refunded from the date of payment. However, Rule (6) cannot be construed in that manner. Hence, the words such amount is determined appearing in Rule 7(4) and such refund is determined in Rule 7(5) are crucial. The determination is thus a relevant factor. 34. Before parting, we would reproduce the following conclusion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovision or refuses to follow a binding decision of the Honble Supreme Court of India or the jurisdictional High Court. In this regard, we would invite the attention of the Tribunal to the following paragraphs in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. and Others reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 22, para 9 and 10 reads as under :- 9. We desire to add and as was said in Cassel and Co. Ltd. v. Broome - (1972) A.C. 1027, we hope it will never be necessary for us to say so again that in the hierarchical system of Courts which exists in our country, it is necessary for each lower tier, including the High Court, to accept loyally the decisions of the higher tiers. It is inevitable in a hierarchical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
