TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable to pay the interest on the differential duty paid through supplementary invoices. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The time limit prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act is also applicable for recovery of interest - the longer period of limitation is not invokable in the present case because the short payment is not due to fraud, collusion, suppression etc with intent to evade duty - the extended period of limitation is not invokable in the present case. In the present case the entire demand of interest on supplementary invoice is barred by limitation - Appeal allowed on limitation. - E/20577/2018-SM, E/20578/2018-SM - Final Order Nos. 20568 – 20569/2019 - Dated:- 19-7-2019 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter 87 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff act, 1985. They clear the goods manufactured on certain prices on payment of duty leviable at the existing rate of duty on the invoice value and whenever there is a revision of prices with retrospective effect they collect the differential value by issuing supplementary invoices and pay the differential duty applicable on the differential value. Department is charging interest on the differential duty paid holding that the correct transaction value of the goods sold on which duty ought to have been paid is the invoice value plus the supplementary invoice value. The original authority confirmed the interest on differential duty paid and also imposed penalty under Rule 25 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C, Madras Vs. TVS Whirlpool Ltd. 1996 (86) E.L.T. 144 (Tribunal) further affirmed by Hon ble Supreme Court 2000 (119) E.L.T. A177 (S.C) b. Jai Bharat Maruti Ltd. V. CCE, Delhi 2014 (307) E.L.T. 282 (P H) c. Kwality Ice Cream Company Vs. Union of India 2012 (281) E.L.T. 507 (Del.) d. Canara Bank Vs. CCE, LTU, Bangalore 2016 (45) S.T.R. 214 (Tri.-Bang.) 3.1. He further submitted that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the present case. Impugned notices were issued to the appellants on 29.01.2008 and 04.05.2010 to demand interest on differential duty paid on supplementary invoices raised during the period May 2003 to September 2003 and February ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decisions: a. Associated Strips Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi 2014 (314) E.L.T. 647 (Tri.-Del.) b. Marsha Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE 2009 (248) E.L.T. 687 (Tri.-Ahmd.) 4. On the other hand the learned AR defended the impugned order. He further submitted that the Hon ble Supreme Court doubted the correctness of the decision in the case of SKF India Ltd. only in the year 2015 when it referred the matter to the Larger Bench in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. cited supra. It is his submission that up to 2015, SKF India was the law of the land and therefore the appellants are liable to pay interest and they have suppressed the facts with intent to evade payment of duty. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hindustan Insecticides Ltd., I hold that extended period of limitation is not invokable in the present case. Further I find that the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sharavathy Conductors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2017 (1) TMI 537 CESTAT Bang. considered the issue of limitation with regard to demand of interest on supplementary invoices. The Tribunal in para 6.2 and 7 has held as under: 6.2. Now we turn to the specific argument of the appellant saying that the show-cause notice is hit by time-bar inasmuch as it has been issued on 20.01.2010 for the period June 2007 to December 2007. The learned DR has argued that there is no time limit for issue of notice for recovery of interest. She has relied upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has already issued one show-cause notice invoking the extended period of limitation for recovery of interest for the period upto May 2007. This demand stands quashed by the Tribunal in Final Order dated 23.06.2011. 6. In view of my discussion above, I am of the considered view that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant in view of the various decisions relied upon cited supra and by following the ratio of the said decisions, I hold that in the present case the entire demand of interest on supplementary invoice is barred by limitation. Consequently, I allow both the appeals of the appellant only on limitation and not on merit. (Order was pronounced in Open Court on 19/07/2019) - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
