Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Arvind Construction Co. (P) Ltd vs Cce, Jaipur on 5 July, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Date of Hearing/Order : 5.7.2016
Appeal No. E/606/2007-EX(DB)
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 104(HKS)CE/JPR-II/2007 dated 13.2.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Jaipur)
For Approval & Signature :
Honble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2.
Whether it would 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 Department Authorities?
M/s Arvind Construction Co. (P) Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Jaipur Respondent
Appearance Shri Tarun Chawla, Advocate - for the appellant Shri G.R. Singh, D.R. - for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 52682/2016 Per S.K. Mohanty :
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 31.1.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur. The grievance of the appellant in this appeal is that confirmation of interest liability without issuance of the show cause notice is not in confirmity with the statutory provisions.
2. Heard ld. Counsel for both sides and perused the records.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of PSC sleepers falling under Heading No. 68101190 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the disputed period, the appellant had supplied pre-stressed railway sleepers to Indian railways at the Provisional Price, which was finalised subsequently. Thus, at the time of supply of goods, the appellant had resorted to provisional assessment in terms of Rule 9(B) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Upon submission of the desired documents, the provisional assessment was finalised by the adjudicating authority vide order dated 28.8.2006 and the assessed differential duty was paid by appellant. The department through adjudication process, has confirmed the interest liability for differential Central Excise duty in terms of Rule 7(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Confirmation of interest liability was contested by the appellant on the ground that no Show Cause Notice in this regard has been issued by the department.
5. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 mandates that the assessee shall be liable to pay interest on any amount payable, consequent upon passing of order of final assessment sub-rule (3) of the said rule. Thus, it is apparent that the interest liability is automatic, if the differential duty, as a result of finalisation of assessment, is paid subsequently. Further Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, no where specifies that for payment of interest, show cause notice has to be issued by the Department. Hence, in our opinion, there is no requirement of issuance of any specific show cause notice for recovery of the interest amount. In the present case since the adjudication order has clearly provided that the interest is required to be paid in terms of Rule 7(4) of the rules, we do not find any infirmity in the said order and also in the impugned order passed by ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order and dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant.
(S.K. Mohanty) Member (Judicial) (R.K. Singh) Member (Technical) RM 3