Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Goodyear India Limited vs Cce, Faridabad on 12 March, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, R.K. PURAM, W.B. NO.2, PRINCIPAL BENCH
NEW DELHI, COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No.2562 of 2007-SM (BR)
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.13/KKJ/Adjn./2007 dated 27.7.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Faridabad ]
Date of Hearing/ Decision:12.3.2008
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial)
,,,,,,,,,
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :
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 :
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :
authorities?
M/s. Goodyear India Limited Appellants
[Rep. by Shri Hemant Bajaj, Advocate.]
Vs.
CCE, Faridabad Respondent
[Rep. by Shri B.S. Suhag, DR.] CORAM: Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Order No/Dated:12.3.2008 Per P.K. Das:
The appellant filed this appeal against demand of interest on payment of differential duty on the basis of supplementary invoices and penalty.
2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the appellants were supplying the materials to the customers as per rate mentioned in the purchase order. Subsequently, the appellants raised supplementary invoices issued due to rate revision/price escalation for various customers and paid the differential duty.
3. Ld. DR relied upon the decision of the single bench of the Tribunal in the case of Inducto Casts Vs. CCE, Vadodara-I reported in 2007 (217) ELT 455 (Tribunal-Ahmd.).
4. Ld. Advocate relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs. CCE, Bangalore reported in 2007-TIOL-173-CESTAT-Bang. He also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Aurangabad Vs. M/s. Rucha Engineering Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2006-TIOL-885-CESTAT-MUM. It is seen from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s. Endurance Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2008-TIOL-330-CESTAT-MUM. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Rucha Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was upheld by the Honble High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in favour of the assessee. It is seen that the Tribunal consistently observed that demand of interest and penalty are not sustainable on payment of differential duty on the basis of supplementary invoices. In view of that, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.
Order dictated & pronounced in open court on 12.3.2008.
( P.K. Das ) Member (Judicial) Ckp.