Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Manibhai And Brothers vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Vadodara-Ii on 3 January, 2018
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Zonal Bench 2nd Floor, Bahumali Building, Nr Girdharnagar Bridge, Asarwa Ahmedabad 380 004 Appeal No. : E/11048/2017 Arising out of OIA-VAD-EXCUS-002-APP-534-2016-17 dt 25/01/2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (Appeals) - VADODARA-I M/s Manibhai And Brothers - Appellant(s) Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Vadodara-ii - Respondent(s)
Represented by For Applicant(s) : Shri Vipul Khandhar, Advocate For Respondent(s): Shri K J Kinariwala, Authorised Representative CORAM :
Shri M V Ravindran, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing / Decision : 03/01/2018 ORDER No. A/10121 / 2018 Per : Shri M V Ravindran, This appeal is directed against OIA-VAD-EXCUS-002-APP-534-2016-17 dt 25/01/2017 passed by the Commission.er of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (Appeals) - VADODARA-I
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. On perusal of records, it transpires that the issue is regarding demand of interest on the differential Central Excise Duty discharged by the appellant for the period Sept. 2011 to May 2015.
4. I find from the records that the appellant has discharged differential duty by raising supplementary invoices which had to be done so due to the price escalation clause. The appellant discharged duty liability they did not pay interest. Show cause notice was issued for the demand of such interest from the appellant. The appellant took constantly before the lower authorities that demand was also needs to be within the period of limitation .
5. Both the lower authorities did not accept this contention.
6. Ld CA produced a copy of the Final Order No A/11897-11899/2016 dt 27.12.16 and Final Order No A/12343/2017 dt 8/9/2017 which was passed in respect of their own case and also in respect of their sister concern.
7. After consideration of the submissions made by the Ld DR and perusal of the judgments of this Tribunal in appellants own case and their sister concern for the earlier period, I find the issue i.e., demand of interest for the differential duty liability paid under supplementary invoices seems to be held in the favour of appellant herein. Since this Bench has already taken a view which is in favour of the appellant herein, I find that the impugned orders holding otherwise are unsustainable and liable to set aside.
8. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) (M V Ravindran) Member (Judicial) swami 2