2011 (4) TMI 1273 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Tribunal's judgment
2. Interest on differential duty
3. Error in rejecting appeal and confirming decision

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the judgment of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad, dated 26th March, 2009. The Tribunal had dismissed the Revenue's appeal, relying on various decisions, including one from the Bombay High Court. The questions raised for consideration included the legality of the Tribunal's order and the payment of interest on differential duty due to price variation. The High Court noted that the decision of the Bombay High Court had been overruled by the Apex Court, necessitating a reconsideration of the issue by the Tribunal. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the proceedings for fresh consideration.

2. The issue of whether interest is payable on differential duty accrued and paid through supplementary invoices raised after the actual dispatch due to price variation was a key point of contention. The Revenue argued that the issue had been settled by the Apex Court in a specific case, while the respondent's counsel contended that the decision of the Apex Court was not applicable in the present circumstances. The High Court found that the Tribunal had not adequately addressed all the contentions raised and therefore ordered a fresh consideration of the issue by the Tribunal after hearing the assessee.

3. The High Court examined whether the Tribunal had committed a substantial error of law in rejecting the appeal of the Revenue and confirming the decision of the Commissioner to set aside the recovery of interest from the respondent. It was noted that the Tribunal had relied on a decision of the Bombay High Court that had been overruled by the Apex Court. The High Court concluded that the issue needed to be reconsidered by the Tribunal in light of the new legal position established by the Apex Court. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the proceedings for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review in accordance with the law.