Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (10) TMI 1300

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion to demand the interest alleging suppression is not sustainable because during the relevant period there were divergent views on the issue of liability of interest on payment of central excise duty while issuing supplementary invoices under the Central Excise Act, 1944. This Tribunal in the case of SUPER THREADING INDIA PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CE ST, LUDHIANA [ 2021 (5) TMI 907 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] and M/S. KEC INTERNATIONAL LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR [ 2022 (3) TMI 692 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] had held that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked as there is no fraud/mis-statement with intent to evade payment of duty. Thus, invoking the extending period of limitation is not sustainable and th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o November, 2006 were issued and after following the due process, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 38,89,078/- as interest on delayed payment under Section 11AB read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the appeal and upheld the Order-in-original. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the record. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed by not properly appreciating the facts and the law and also violating the principles of natural justice. He further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not given any opportunity of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lity itself was not discharged on the supplementary invoices issued by the appellant. 7. Ld. Counsel further submits that the extended period has wrongly been invoked in the present case and the liability of interest will be restricted to the normal period of limitation only. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: Super Threading India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana [2021 (377) ELT 462 (Tri.-Chandigarh)] KEC International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [Final Order No. 50246-50248/2022]. 8. Ld. Counsel also relied upon the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Neel Metal Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he interest alleging suppression is not sustainable because during the relevant period there were divergent views on the issue of liability of interest on payment of central excise duty while issuing supplementary invoices under the Central Excise Act, 1944. 12. We also find that the Hon ble Apex Court finally settled the issue of interest on supplementary invoices on 08.05.2019 reported in 2019 (366) E.L.T. 769 (S.C.). We further find that this Tribunal in the case of Super Threading India Pvt. Ltd. and KEC International Ltd. cited (Supra) had held that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked as there is no fraud/mis-statement with intent to evade payment of duty. We also find that the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Cou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dispute that assessee has paid the differential duty on supplementary invoices regularly and has shown the same in the ER-I returns, which were filed regularly before the department, therefore, issuance of show cause notice for interest on the delayed payment should also be within a period of one year as stipulated under Section 11-A of the Act. Therefore, department has absolutely no jurisdiction to issue show cause notice after expiry of the period of limitation for interest on the delayed payment for the period from 2002-03 to 2005-06 Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Kwality Ice Cream Company and Another v. Union of India and Others, WP (C) 14414-15/2006 decided on 18-1-2012 has also held that period of limitation, unles .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates