Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Hero Cycles vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 30 May, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV Excise Appeal No. 3951 of 2010-EX[SM] [Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No 210/CE/APPL/LDH/2010 dated 16.09.2010 passed by Commissioner Central Excise, Chandigarh-II] For approval and signature: Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) 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. Hero Cycles Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Respondent
Chandigarh-II Appearance:
None for the Appellant ShriSanjay Jain, AR for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing/decision : 30.05.2013 ORDER NO . FO/ 56493 /2013-SM(Br) Per Rakesh Kumar:
The appellants had supplied finished goods to their customers under contract with price escalation clause. Subsequently, on finalization of price, the same was revised upwards from back date and on receipt of differential amount on account of price escalation, the appellant paid the Central excise duty chargeable on the same. However, they did not pay the interest on this duty paid under supplementary invoices. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner holding that interest on the duty paid under supplementary invoice is chargeable in terms of provisions of Section 11 AB, confirmed the demand of Rs.3,89,021/- along with imposition of penalty of Rs.5,000/- vide order in original dated 15.12.09 and this order of the Assistant Commissioner was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order in appeal dated 16.9.10 against which this appeal has been filed.
2. The appellant have submitted written submissions wherein assailing the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on various grounds, have requested for decision of merits, stating that they do not want any personal hearing.
3. Heard Shri Sanjay Jain, learned DR who stated that the issue involved in this case is no longer res integra and same stands decided by the Apex Court vide judgment in the case of CCE Pune vs. S K F Bearings Ltd. reported in [2009 (239) ELT 385 (SC)].
4. I have considered the written submissions of the appellant and have also heard the submissions of learned DR. Since the issue involved in this case stands decided by the Apex Court in the case of SKF Bearings Ltd. , there is no infirmity in the impugned order.
5. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
(Pronounced in the open court)
( Rakesh Kumar ) Member(Technical)
ss
??
??
??
??
2