TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Karthikeyan, Member (T) S/Shri V. Balasubramaniam and M Kannan, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri N.J. Kumaresh, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - M/s. Bimetal Bearings Ltd. (BBL, for short), appellants in three of these appeals, have two manufacturing units, one at Chennai and the other at Coimbatore, the former manufacturing 'steel strips with copper coating' and the latter manufacturing thin-walled bearings. The product of the Chennai unit is input for the Coimbatore unit. During the period of dispute, the Chennai unit cleared their product on payment of duty in provisional assessment, to the sister unit at Coimbatore. As there was no sale involved in the transaction, the valuati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s .BBL. 2. The facts of the case of M/s. Ennore Foundries Ltd. (EFL for short), appellants in appeal Nos. E/209 210/07, are, by and large, similar to the case of M/s. BBL. The only difference is that the clearances of excisable goods by M/s. EFL were not to any sister unit. These clearances involved sale and hence Rule 8 was not invocable. In their case, however, there was a different reason for provisional assessment, which was that the clearances of excisable goods were made under contracts containing a price variation clause, which was invoked by the assessee. As in the case of M/s. BBL, this assessee also suo motu finalized assessments and paid differential duty forthwith without waiting for finalization of assessments by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6-TIOL-1341-CESTAT-Bang. 4. Ld. SDR submits that Rule 7(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is clear enough to provide for payment of interest by an assessee on the differential amount of duty paid by him prior to finalization of a provisional assessment by the assessing authority, for the period specifically prescribed thereunder. It is submitted that the Board's supplementary instruction does not, in anyway, detract from the correct legal position. At this juncture, it is submitted by the ld. counsel that the department's request for referring the question to Larger Bench was turned down by a learned Single Member of the Tribunal in the case of Tata Motors Ltd. v. CCE, Pune, 2008 (226) E.L.T. 563 (Tri.-Mumbai.) and, therefore, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under section 11AA or section 11AB of the Act from the first day of the month succeeding the month for which such amount is determined, till the date of payment thereof." In the case of Karnataka Vidyuth Karkhane Ltd. (supra), the coordinate Bench examined the above provision and observed thus: "it is clear from the above rule that interest provision would be applicable after the expiry of the period of one month from the date when the amount is determined". With great respect, we are unable to agree with this view which does not flow from the text of the provision. The period prescribed for payment of interest under Rule 7(4) is from the first date of the month succeeding the month for which the amount is deter mined, till the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the final amount of duty and paid the same. In other words, the assessee, in this factual situation, has no liability to pay interest on the differential amount of duty for the period from the date of payment and the date of finalization of provisional assessment by the assessing authority. Impliedly, the Board's instruction recognizes the assessee's liability to pay interest on the differential duty upto the date of payment of the duty. There can be no doubt regarding the date of commencement of the period for payment of interest. This date is precisely the first date of the month succeeding the month for which the duty was paid. As rightly pointed out by ld. SDR, Rule 7(4) is clear enough. It will not be unreasonable to say that the Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
