Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Spicer India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 10 February, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. IV Appeal No. E/17/07 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. P-III/BBP/162/2006 dated 25.9.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-III). For approval and signature: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) ======================================================
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 : Yes 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?
====================================================== M/s Spicer India Ltd.
Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III Respondent Appearance:
Shri J.H. Motwani Advocate for Appellant Shri N.A. Sayyed JDR for Respondent CORAM:
SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing: 10.02.2010 Date of Decision: 10.02.2010 ORDER NO. WZB/MUM/2009 Per: Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The short issue involve in this case is as to whether the interest is payable on delayed payment or not.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants cleared their product to their sister unit and while calculating the assessable value they did not adopt the CAS-4 formula. Later on as and when they came to know about the CAS4, they paid the differential duty, but on said differential duty, the Revenue demanded the interest and imposed a penalty of Rs.5000/-.
3. The learned Advocate for the appellants submits that they were not known the assessable value at the time of clearance of the goods to their sister unit, so they could not paid the duty at the time of clearance of the goods. Moreover, it is a case of revenue neutrality and in that a situation, the appellants are not liable to pay interest. He further submitted that in the case of CCE, Pune Vs. SKF India Ltd. reported in 2009 (239) ELT 385 (SC), the goods were cleared to the customers and supplementary invoices were issued later on, on which the interest was demanded, that is not the situation in this case. He accordingly prayed that interest and penalty cannot be imposed.
4. Heard.
5. The contention of the appellant is not acceptable as in the case of SKF India (supra), the Honble Apex Court has clearly held that interest on delayed payment is payable in all respects. Hence, the issue has already been decided by the Apex Court. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the appellant and the same is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) Vks/ 1