Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Automobile Corporation Of India Ltd vs Cce, Pune-Iii on 17 June, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. I Appeal No. E/941/10 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PIII/VM/30/10 dated 12.02.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Pune-III]. For approval and signature: Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, 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 : No 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 Automobile Corporation of India Ltd. Appellant Vs. CCE, Pune-III Respondent Appearance: Shri Rajesh Ostwal, Advocate for Appellants Shri N. N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR) for Respondents CORAM: HONBLE SHRI M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing: 17.06.2015 Date of Decision: 17.06.2015 ORDER NO. Per: Shri M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. PIII/VM/30/10 dated 12.02.2010.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The issue in brief in this appeal is regarding the interest liability on the supplementary invoices raised by the appellant on upward revising of prices of finished goods (on their own). It is not in dispute that appellant had raised supplementary invoices and discharged differential duty, but it seems failed to pay interest in terms of Sec. 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. Three show cause notices were issued which were contested and demand for interest was confirmed.
4. Learned counsel submits that interest is not payable. He would also submit that in one of the show cause notice interest is demanded of a period more than one year but invoking extended period; was invoked without alleging suppression of facts or any misstatement on the part of appellant. For this preposition he relies on the judgment of Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Hindustan Intechtiside Ltd. V/s CCE 2013(297) ELT 332 and judgment of Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Jai Bharat Maruti Ltd. V/s CCE 2014(307) ELT 282.
5. Ld. departmental representative reiterated the findings of lower authorities and submitted that interest is payable on the differentiable duty paid. He would submit that Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Padmashri B B Patil SSK Ltd. V/s CCE 2007(215) ELT 23 (Bom.) has held so and submits that jurisdictional High Court has held interest is payable on the differentiable duty.
6. On consideration of submission mode, I find that the interest liability is confirmed by the lower authorities, is correct for the period within limitation, and is the law settled by the Apex Court. To that extent appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of merits and is rejected.
7. On of the point raised by the Ld. Counsel that show cause notice dated November 2007, demands interest for a period beyond one year, which in my view, is hit by limitation is the law settled by Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Jai Bharat Maruti Ltd. (Supra); I have to also record that the demand for interest beyond the period of one year is not sustainable, as there is no allegation of mis-statement or suppression of facts, the ratio of the judgment of Honble High Court would be applicable in the case in hand. Respectfully following the ratio, I set aside the demand of interest confirmed by invoking extended period of limitation.
8. The reliance placed by the Ld. departmental representative on the judgment of Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Padmashri B B Patil SSK Ltd. (Supra), it will not carry the case of the revenue any further, as the judgments of High Court of Delhi and Punjab & Haryana, are dealing the specific issue of invocation of extended period for demand of interest when duty liability on supplementary invoices is paid, Honble High Court of Bombay undoubtedly as decided the law as to interest liability on the supplementary invoices.
9. In view of the forgoing, the appeal is allowed partly and rejected partly as stated herein above.
(Dictated in Court)
(M.V. Ravindran)
Saifi Member (Judicial)
1