Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Tata Motors Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & St ... on 2 September, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL Nos. E/1432, 1433/05-Mum (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PI/35 to 36/2005 dated 13.1.2005 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-I) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) and Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) ======================================================
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 :
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?
====================================================== Tata Motors Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (LTU), Mumbai Respondent Appearance: Shri Rajesh Ostwal, Advocate, for appellant Shri V.K. Shastri, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 2.9.2016 Date of Decision: 2.9.2016 ORDER NO Per: M.V. Ravindran
These two appeals are directed against order-in-appeal No. PI/35 to 36/2005 dated 13.1.2005.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The issue that falls for consideration in both these appeals are the appellant herein is manufacturing various items and is using the same for captive consumption at their unit and at their another unit by transferring the same. Such transfers are effected on payment of duty which was provisionally assessed on request of the appellant. The appellant on their own ascertained the differential duty liability and discharged the same before the provisional assessments were finalized and an order was passed. Subsequently, the adjudicating authority passed an order upholding/appropriating the amounts discharged by the appellant as the correct duty. The adjudicating authority sought for and confirmed an interest on such differential duty liability which is contested by the appellant in these appeals.
4. It is the case of the appellant that the provisions of Rule 7 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 2001 can be invoked for demanding interest only if the differential duty is payable by an assessee on an amount which his confirmed on finalization of the assessment. It is also the case that in the case in hand, they have paid the amounts before the finalization of the assessment, hence there is no demand on finalization of the assessment. Both the lower authorities have relied upon circular No. 354/81/2000-TRU dated 30.6.2000 for holding that the duty liability arises and needs to be discharged based upon Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules and the interest liability also arises.
5. We find that the issue is no more res integra as the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of CEAT Ltd. vs. CCE, Nashik reported in 2015 (317) ELT 192 (Bom.), upheld the Tribunals order that interest liability does not arise when the assessments are finalized and there is no demand of differential duty. The said judgment of the Honble High Court of Bombay was carried in appeal by the Revenue to the Honble Supreme Court and the apex court by an order dated 14.12.2015, after condoning the delay, dismissed the special leave petition filed by the Revenue. It would mean that the apex court has settled the law that the interest liability does not arise when the amount is paid before the finalization of the provisional assessment on its own by an assessee.
6. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Pronounced in Court) (C.J. Mathew) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) tvu 1 4 E/1432, 1433/05