Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S. Sambhav Conductors Pvt. Ltd on 15 September, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV
Excise Appeal No. 2273 of 2007-SM(BR)
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 281-283(HKS)/CE/JPR-II/2007 dated 15.5.2007 passed by Commissioner (Appeals II), Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur I ]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, 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?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 :
of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for
publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair :
copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the :
Departmental authorities?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commissioner of Central Excise Appellants
Jaipur II
M/s. Sambhav Conductors Pvt. Ltd. Respondents
Appearance:
Mr. Vijay Kumar, SDR for the Appellants
Mr. Atul Gupta, Company Secretary for the Respondents
Date of Hearing/decision : 15.9.2009
ORAL ORDER NO . ________________________
Per M. Veeraiyan:
This is an appeal by the department against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 281-283(HKS)/CE/JPR-II/2007 dated 15.5.07 by which the order of the original authority confirming demand of interest has been set aside.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondents supplied ACSR conductors and bare aluminium wire to their Customers like State Electricity Boards as per contract containing price escalation clauses. Subsequently due to revision in prices the respondents paid the differential duty. There is no dispute about liability to payment of differential duty. The original authority confirmed recovery of interest with reference to date of clearance of the consignment and the due date on which the duty ought to have been paid. Commissioner (Appeals), on appeal of the party, set aside the order of the original authority for recovery of interest.
4. Learned SDR submits that the issue regarding interest liability on price increase quoted through 79 invoices is no more res integra having been decided by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Pune vs. SKF Ltd. reported in [2009 (239) ELT 385 (SC)]. Learned SDR also submits that there is no limitation provided for in respect of demand of interest.
5. Learned Company Secretary, Shri Atul Gupta while agreeing with the submissions of the learned SDR that the issue of the liability to interest has been settled by the Honble Supreme Court, submits that demand for interest should be subject to limitation. He relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs, Madras vs. T.V.S. Whirlpool Ltd. reported in [1996 (86) ELT 144] wherein it has been held that the demand for interest shall be governed by the limitation as applicable to demand of duty, short levied, not levied or erroneously refunded. He also submits that the said decision of the Tribunal was challenged before the Honble Supreme Court and the appeal filed by the department has been dismissed with the following observations:-
It is only reasonable that the period of limitation that applies to a claim for the principal amount should also apply to the claim for interest thereon. We find no merit in the appeals and they are dismissed with cost.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. It is not being disputed that the differential duty is payable by the party. It is also not being disputed that interest on the differential duty is also payable as held by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of SKF Ltd. cited supra. The issue raised relates to applicability of limitation to order recovery of interest. According to the learned SDR, since the differential duty has been paid, the interest is payable as a consequence thereof. The learned Company Secretary is disputing the same. However, both sides agree that the records do not reveal the relevant facts like dates of invoices, date of finalisation of the prices, the date of recovery/ payment of differential duty, dates of supplementary invoices. These facts may be relevant for considering the submissions by learned Company Secretary. To enable the to be considered I set aside the orders of the authorities below and remand the matter the to the original authority with the direction that the matter shall be decided afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. The party is free to file written submissions, if they so desire, within a month from the date of receipt of this order.
7. It is clarified that no views on the issue of applicability of limitation on interest have been expressed.
8. Appeal is allowed by way of remand, as above.
( M. Veeraiyan ) Member(Technical) ss 4