Commr.Of Central Excise,Pune vs M/S Skf India Ltd on 6 July, 2009
2. The department is in appeal against the impugned order as the lower appellate authority has demanded the interest and penalty under Section 11AB and 11AC. After hearing the matter for some time, we find that the issue involved in this case is akin to the issue decided by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Pune Vs. SKF India Ltd. 2009 (239) ELT 385 (S.C). The appellant assessee did not know at the time of clearance of the impugned goods that they would be receiving additional amount towards the value of goods. They have paid the differential duty after receiving additional amount and the Ld. Advocate is not pressing the appeal in relation to the demand of differential duty. We note that in the case of SKF India Ltd. (cited supra), Honble Supreme Court has held that payment of differential duty at a later date is clearly a case of short payment of duty though completely unintended and without element of deceit. The Honble Supreme Court has also held that interest is chargeable under Section 11AB but no penalty is attracted under Section 11AC in the absence of fraud, suppression etc. Applying the ratio of the said decision, we are of the view that the adjudicating Commissioner has correctly held that no penalty on account of fraud, suppression etc., is leviable in this case. As regards the payment of interest, he has also correctly held the same is not chargeable as at the material time the provision of charging interest on delayed payment was linked to cases of fraud, suppression etc.