2017 (1) TMI 1544 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of interest - provisional assessment - whether the interest is payable on the differential duty paid before finalization of the assessment or otherwise? Held that - the issue has been settled by the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in appellant s own case reported as CEAT Ltd. 2015 (2) TMI 794 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , where it was held that interest is not chargeable on the differential duty paid before finalization of assessment - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Whether interest is chargeable on the differential duty paid before finalization of assessment in the case of provisional assessment during the period 2012-13.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai involved a crucial issue regarding the payment of interest on differential duty in the case of provisional assessment. The tribunal noted that the matter was listed for early hearing due to the issue being settled up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the applicant's own case. The appeal was taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides, focusing on the question of whether interest is chargeable on the differential duty paid before finalization of assessment during the period 2012-13.

The appellant's counsel highlighted that the same issue had been decided in the appellant's own case by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, which was challenged by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's petition, leading to the finality of the issue. The Revenue, represented by the Additional Commissioner, reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

After considering the submissions from both sides, the tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the appellant's case, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Based on this precedent, the tribunal held that interest is not chargeable on the differential duty paid before the finalization of assessment. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The judgment was pronounced in court on 23/01/2017.