9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rential duty on the differential value collected under supplementary invoices but failed to pay interest on the differential duty paid against the supplementary invoices. Even after repeated letters, pursuant to Audit objection, issued to the appellants in both the cases, they failed to respond by submitting details of supplementary invoices raised and differential duty paid from time to time. However, subsequently, they responded to the summons and furnished the amount of differential duty paid during the relevant period from August 2008 to March 2013 in Appeal No. E/21581/2014 pertaining to Plant-I and for the period from 2008-09 to 2012-13 in Appeal No. E/21583/2014 for Plant-III. Thereafter, demand for recovery of interest amounting to Rs.4,84,348/- and Rs.15,85,230/- under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944, respectively, was made by issuing show cause notice invoking extended period limitation. On adjudication, demands have been confirmed and penalty of Rs.5,000/- under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 in each case has been imposed. Hence, these appeals. 3. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that on raising supplementary invoices from time to time, they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C.) and Commissioner of Central Excise vs. International Auto Ltd.: 2010 (250) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) Therefore, it is his contention that demand of interest by the learned Commissioner is valid in law and it is automatically payable when differential duty is paid. There is no time limit for payment of interest. Besides, by non-furnishing data as and when called by the Department, the appellant suppressed the said facts, hence extended period of limitation rightly invoked and confirmed against the appellant. Also, imposition of penalty by the Commissioner is justified. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. We find that the limited issue involved in this appeal relates to levy of interest on the differential duty paid during the relevant period by issuance of supplementary invoices enhancing the value declared at the time of clearance of the goods. 6.1 We find that the issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SKF India Ltd. (supra), wherein it has been observed as follows: "9. Section 11A puts the cases of non-levy or short levy, non-payment or short payment or erroneous refund of duty in two categories. One in which the non-payment or short payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the scheme of the four sections (11A, 11AA, 11AB & 11AC) interest is leviable on delayed or deferred payment of duty for whatever reasons. ....... ....... 14. We are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the High Court. It is to be noted that the assessee was able to demand from its customers the balance of the higher prices by virtue of retrospective revision of the prices. It, therefore, follows that at the time of sale the goods carried a higher value and those were cleared on short payment of duty. The differential duty was paid only later when the assessee issued supplementary invoices to its customers demanding the balance amounts. Seen thus it was clearly a case of short payment of duty though indeed completely unintended and without any element of deceit etc. The payment of differential duty thus clearly came 13 under sub-section (2B) of section 11A and attracted levy of interest under section 11AB of the Act." 6.2 The above said view has been concurred by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India (supra). The relevant paragraph is reproduced below: "63. We are of the view that the reasoning of this Court in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed." 6.3 On the applicability of extended period, we find that in Appeal No. E/21582/2014, the show-cause notice was issued to the appellants on 31.05.2013 for Plant-III, demanding interest for the period from 2008-09 to 2012-13 on the basis of audit objection raised during the period June 2007. The Commissioner in the impugned order held that inspite of repeated letters issued during the period from April 2011 to October 2012, they failed to respond and finally, the details relating to amount on which differential duty paid was submitted only on 12.08.2013 in pursuance to the summons issued. Similarly, in case of Appeal No. E/21581/2014, show-cause notice was issued on 5.9.2019 in respect of their Plant-I demanding interest on differential duty on the basis of audit of records, conducted during July 2010 to December 2011, for the period 2008-09 to 2012-13. The learned Commissioner observed that since the appellant failed to furnish the data inspite of repeated reminders, thus, with an intention not to pay interest, suppressed the facts of payment of differential duty in raising supplementary invoices. Accordingly, interest for the extended period is recoverable from the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
