Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Bangalore vs M/S. Gts Alloys Pvt. Ltd on 18 February, 2010
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE
Bench Division Bench
Court I
Date of Hearing: 18/02/2010
Date of decision:18/02/2010
Appeal No.E/241 & 310/08
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.289/2007-CE dt. 20/12/2007 ; No.9/2008-CE dt. 30/1/2008
passed by Commissioner(Appeals), Bangalore)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. M.V.Ravindran, Member(Judicial)
Honble Mr. P.Karthikeyan, Member(Technical)
1.
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3.
Whether their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4.
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
CCE, Bangalore
..Appellant(s)
Vs.
M/s. GTS Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
..Respondent(s)
Appearance Ms. Joy Kumari Chander, Jt.CDR for the Revenue.
None for the respondent.
Coram:
Honble Mr. M.V.Ravindran, Member(Judicial) Honble Mr. P.Karthikeyan, Member(Technical) FINAL ORDER No._______________________2010 Per M.V.Ravindran These two appeals are filed against the Orders-in-Appeal No. No.289/2007-CE dt. 20/12/2007 and No.9/2008-CE dt. 30/1/2008.
2. None appeared for the respondent. Heard ld. Jt.CDR and perused records.
3. Ld. Jt.CDR submits that the issue involved in this case is regarding leviability of interest on the supplementary invoices raised by the respondents. She would also submit that it is not in dispute that the supplementary invoices raised for the difference in price and the respondents have paid differential duty. The only question is regarding the interest. It is her submission that the issue is now squarely covered by the decision of the Apex court in the case of CCE, Pune Vs. SKF India Ltd. [2009(239) ELT 385(SC)].
4. We have considered the submissions by both sides and perused the records. On perusal of the records, we find that the ld. Commissioner(Appeals) has set aside the interest liability imposed on the respondents by the adjudicating authority on the ground that provisions of Section 11AB are not invokable for the differential duty paid on the revision of prices. We find that the issue is now squarely covered by the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of SKF India Ltd.(supra).
5. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and uphold the Order-in-Original. Respondent is directed to pay the interest as has been adjudged by the adjudicating authority. (Pronounced and dictated in open court) (P.KARTHIKEYAN) Member (Technical) (M.V. RAVINDRAN) Member (Judicial) Nr 3