Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Thane I vs Pratibha Pipes & Structural Ltd on 13 January, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. Appeal No. E/04/09 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. YG/123/Th.I/08-09 dated 10.10.08 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone I.) For approval and signature: Honble Mr.P.G. Chacko Member (Judicial) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane I Appellant Vs Pratibha Pipes & Structural Ltd Respondent Appearance:
Mr N.A. Sayyad, JDR, for Appellant Ms Purnima Laxminarayanan, Advocate, for Respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr.P.G. Chacko Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing: 13.01.2010 Date of Decision: 13.01.2010 O R D E R NO..
1. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I note that the short question arising for consideration is, whether under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, the respondent is liable to pay interest on the differential amount of duty paid by them for the period September 03 to May 05. The said duty was paid under supplementary invoices issued after clearance of the goods. When the goods were cleared from factory, duty had been paid on the assessable value determined on the basis of the price originally agreed between the assessee and their buyers. The price subsequently came to be enhanced as per the relevant price escalation clause of the contract. Accordingly, for recovering the differential price from the buyers and paying the differential duty on the goods, the assessee issued the above supplementary invoices. The question whether interest under Section 11AB was payable on such differential amount of duty was settled by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner vs SKF Ltd 2009-TIOL-82-SC-CX. As per the Honble Supreme Courts ruling, such interest is payable by the assessee. The prayer in this appeal of the Revenue is, therefore, liable to be granted. There is no challenge against the dropping of penalty.
2. The impugned order is set aside insofar as the decision of the lower appellate authority on the interest-related issue is concerned. This appeal is allowed, accordingly.
(Dictated in Court.) (P.G. Chacko) Member (Judicial) rk 2