9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arch, 2009. However, show cause notice bearing No. 263 dated 29.4.2009 was served upon the appellant proposing recovery of non payment of interest amounting to Rs. 1,97,485/- on the said delayed payment. The said proposal was confirmed by Order-in-Original No. 48/2009 dated 30.09.2009. The appeal thereof was rejected vide order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 8.6.2010. However, this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 50712/2014 dated 14.2.2014 denied the liability of appellant to pay the interest for the delayed payment of Central Excise duty against post price variation. Prior to the said decision an amount of Rs. 4,80,215/- was also deposited as interest under protest by the appellant for a period from December, 2005 to October, 2011. After th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elayed payment of differential duty paid on price variation bills has been rejected on the ground that since the appellant was liable to pay interest on the price variation amount, he is not liable to get the refund thereof. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra) case has adjudicated the same issue i.e. whether the interest is payable on differential excise duty with retrospective effect that becomes payable on the basis of escalation clause. The relevant extract of the order is as under: "63. We are of the view that the reasoning of this Court in the order referring the cases to us (to this Bench) that for the purpose of Section 11AB, the expression "ought to have been paid" would mean the time when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciple that the value of the goods at the time of removal is to reign supreme, in a case where the price is provisional and subject to variation and when it is varied retrospectively it will be the price even at the time of removal. The fact that it is known, later cannot detract from the fact, that the later discovered price would not be value at the time of removal. Most significantly, section 11A and section 11AB as it stood at the relevant time did not provide read with the rules any other point of time when the amount of duty could be said to be payable and so equally the interest. We would concur with the views expressed in SKF case(supra) and International Auto (supra). We 114 find no merit in the appeals. The appeals will stand dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
