Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Bhopal vs M/S Veekay Alloys Conductors (P) Ltd on 13 August, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. IV Excise Appeal No. 3235 of 2006 (SM) [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 174-CE/BPL/2006 dated 17/07/2006 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Bhopal.] For Approval and signature : Honble Shri 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 would 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 : Department Authorities? CCE, Bhopal Appellant Versus M/s Veekay Alloys Conductors (P) Ltd. Respondent
Appearance Shri S.K. Panda, Authorized Representative (Jt. CDR) for the appellant.
None - for the Respondent.
CORAM : Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) DATE OF HEARING : 13/08/2013.
Final Order No. 57332/2013 Dated : 13/08/2013 Per. Rakesh Kumar :-
The only point of dispute in this case is as to whether the interest is payable under Section 11AB on the differential duty paid under supplementary invoice on account of upward revision of price of the goods from back date. The department being of the view that the interest on the differential amount would be payable, issued a show cause. However, the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 29/10/05 dropped the interest demand and this order of the Assistant Commissioner was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), against which this appeal has been filed by the Revenue.
2. Though a notice for hearing had been issued to the respondent well in advance, today when this matter was called, none representing the respondent appeared. In view of this, so far as the respondent are concerned, the matter is being decided ex-parte.
3. Heard Shri S.K. Panda, learned Jt. CDR, who pleaded that the issue involved in this case stand decided in the departments favour by the Apex Courts judgment in the case of CCE, Pune vs. SKF India Ltd. reported in 2009 (239) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.). He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order upholding the interest demand is not sustainable.
4. I have considered the submissions of learned Jt. CDR and have gone through the records of this case.
5. Since, the issue stands decided in favour of the Revenue by the judgment of Apex court in the case of CCE, Pune vs. SKF India Ltd. (supra), the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside and the demand of interest amounting to Rs. 1,483/- is confirmed against the respondent. The Revenues appeal is allowed.
(Pronounced in the open court.) (Rakesh Kumar) Member (Technical) PK ??
??
??
??
2