TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 910X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri S. Narayana, DGM For the Appellant Shri N. Jagadish, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent Per : S.S GARG 1.1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 03.02.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the appeal of the appellant has been rejected by the Commissioner. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Tablet PCs, additional Battery Packs, Solar Chargers etc. They obtained an Order for supply of Tablet PCs, Battery Packs and Solar Chargers from the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, vide Purchase Order dt. 10.06.2011 and 23.01.2012. In the said Purchase Orders the indicative unit pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Additional Battery Packs, cleared by them during the period July 2011 to May 2012 (for 1st Provisional Assessment) towards the short paid duty. On 30.03.2014, they also paid the differential duty of ₹ 45,15,472/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Two only) on Tablet PCs and Additional Battery Packs, cleared during the period March 2012 to May 2012 (for 2nd Provisional Assessment). 1.4. The Assistant Commissioner of the Central Excise vide two Orders-in-Original finalized the provisional assessment and appropriated the amount paid and confirmed the demand of interest under Rule 7(4) of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11AA of Central Excise Act. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the differential duty paid before finalization of assessment. 4. On the other hand the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties, I find that the issue is no more res integra and has been settled by the Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner V. CEAT Limited - 2016 (342) E.L.T. A181 (S.C) wherein the Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court decision which held that interest is not required to be paid on differential duty if the same is paid before finalization of assessment. By following the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court, I allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order with consequential relief, if any. (Operative portion of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
