Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Pushti Refineries (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 26 November, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No. 27004/2013 Application(s) Involved: E/Stay/130/2007 in E/189/2007-SM Appeal(s) Involved: E/189/2007-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 178/2006 dated 29/12/2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore] Pushti Refineries (P) Ltd. Survey No.70/2, Kalli Palaya, Adagur Post, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur Dist., Bangalore Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Bangalore-I Post Box No. 5400, CR Buildings, Bangalore - 560 001, Karnataka Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, CA Hiragange & Associates #1010, 1st floor(Above Corp. Bank) 26th Main, 4th T Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore - 560 041 Karnataka For the Appellant Mr. S. Teli, Deputy Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 26/11/2013 Date of Decision: 26/11/2013 The appellant is a manufacturer of refined edible oil. The issue is whether the appellant is liable to pay interest on the duty amount of Rs. 1,66,220/- already paid by them or not.
2. Learned CA submits that in the case of very same commodity and on the very same issue, this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Indore Vs. Premier Industries Ltd. [2009 (248) E.L.T. 833 (Tri.-Del.)] had taken a view that no interest is payable. He also relies upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Star India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai & Goa [2006 (1) S.T.R. 73 (S.C)]. Learned AR relies upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Pune Vs. SKF India Ltd. reported in [2009 (239) E.L.T. 385 (S.C)] and submits that this decision has to be considered in preference to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Star India Pvt. Ltd. in view of the fact that this is a later decision.
3. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. I find that this Tribunal in the case of Premier Industries Ltd. had considered the very same issue. The Tribunal observed that the amendment of Chapter 15 came on 13.05.2005 with retrospective effect and since the duty was levied with retrospective effect consequent upon amendment by Finance Bill 2005 there could not have been any short-levy or short-payment of duty prior to 13.05.2005. Learned AR has not been able to show whether any appeal has been filed against this decision. Further I also find that as submitted by the learned CA, the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Star India Pvt. Ltd. also applies to the facts of this case. In that case also Honble Supreme Court observed that when liability is extended by way of amendment to Finance Act with retrospective effect, retrospectivity is not permissible to create an offence retrospectively and further liability to payment of interest cannot be said to have been created with retrospective effect. In my opinion both these decisions apply to the facts of this case. As regards the decision in the case of SKF India Ltd., in that case Honble Supreme Court was not considering the consequences of retrospective amendment and therefore the decision of the Honble Supreme Court where the issue involved is same has to be preferred to the one where a general decision in principal has been taken. In any case the decision in the case of SKF India Ltd. was relevant to the cases where supplementary invoice has been issued by a party whereby the value has increased. Under these circumstances, I consider that the decisions cited by the appellant are relevant and accordingly the appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any to the appellant.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open court) (B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER iss