Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
V.S. Engineering Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Guntur on 29 July, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: E/2711/2012-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Original No.55/2012-CE dt. 29/06/2012 passed by CCE, Guntur] For approval and signature: HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 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? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes V.S. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Nallapadu, Guntur, AP Appellant(s) Versus CCE, Guntur Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None For the Appellant Shri Pakshi Rajan, Asst. Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 10/07/2015 Date of Decision: . CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. / 2015 Per : ARCHANA WADHWA The appellant has made a request for decision on merits and in view of the written submissions made by them. Accordingly I have heard the learned AR and have gone through the appeal memorandum as also the impugned order.
2. As per the facts on record, appellant entered into an agreement with the Indian Railways for supply of PSC Sleepers on contract price. The agreement contained a price escalation clause and as and when there was escalation, the appellant raised supplementary invoices and paid the duty accordingly. During the period October 2002 to October 2010, differential duty to the extent of Rs.99.51 lakhs was paid by them and was duly reflected in their monthly returns.
3. However the Revenue entertained a view that the appellant is also required to pay the interest on the said differential duty so paid by them by way of supplementary invoices. Accordingly they issued a show-cause notice dt. 29/02/2012 proposing demand of interest, which notice stands culminated into impugned order passed by the Commissioner confirming the interest of Rs.10,74,829/- and imposing penalty of Rs.5000/-.
4. Though the appellants have contested the said confirmation on merits as also on limitation, I find that the appeal can be disposed on limitation itself inasmuch as the issue on the point of limitation stands finally decided by the Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. Vs. CCE, LTU [2013-TIOL-631-HC-DEL-CX]. It stands held by the Honble High Court that the provisions of Section 11A would equally appeal to the demand of interest under Section 11AB, which demand is on account of retrospective revision of the prices. By applying the said decision, I find that the demand in the present appeal is wholly barred by limitation. Reference can also be made to the Honble Punjab & Haryana High Courts decision in the case of Jai Bharat Maruti Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi-III [2014(307) ELT 282 (P&H)].
5. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Order pronounced on .) ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER Raja..
3