Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Sudarshan Chemical Industries vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 24 January, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007(213)ELT569(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. A short issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether appellants are liable to pay interest on the differential duty short paid by them to the extent of Rs. 6,70,223.67 on the ground of under valuation of the goods during the period July 2000 to March 2003. The appellants have challenged the confirmation of interest on the ground that duty was paid by them before issuance of the show cause notice and as such in terms of the Larger Bench decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Machino Montell confirmation of interest in terms of the proviso to Section AB(1) cannot be upheld.
2. After hearing both the sides, I find that the interest stands confirmed against the appellant in terms of amended provision to Section AB(1) which provide for payment of interest in respect of duty not paid or short paid or wherever the assessee have paid the duty in terms of Sub-section 2B of Section 11 A. The said Sub-section 2B of Section 11A is to the effect that where the assessee pay the amount of duty before service of notice on him and informs the Central Excise officer about the payment no notice shall be served upon him in respect of duty so paid. As such, it becomes clear that even where the duty was paid by the assessee and no show cause notice is required to be served upon him, his liability to pay interest arises in terms of the provision of Section 11AB. It is further noted that the Larger Bench decision in the case of Machino Montel is of no help to the appellant inasmuch as the same was reversed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III v. Machino Montell (I) Ltd. .
3. In view of above decision, I find no merits in the appeal and reject the same.
(Pronounced in Court on 24-1-2007)