2010 (9) TMI 244 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacture of various excisable goods - falling under different chapters - clearing under the cover of their invoices on the assessable value agreed between them and their buyer - based on the price of the raw material - there is a price escalation clause in the agreement and consequently revised purchase orders are issued and supplementary invoices for different amounts are raised by the appellant - At the time of initial clearance, duty liability is discharged on the basis of prevalent prices and wherever subsequently supplementary invoices are issued for the higher price, the appellants paid the differential duty - interest leviable on such differential duty paid subsequently by way of supplementary invoices - Held that - it was a case of short payment of duty though it was not intentional and without any allegation of deceit - assessee paid duty on the differential price - allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant

Summary

Issues:
Interest on differential duty paid subsequently through supplementary invoices.

Analysis:
The appellants are involved in manufacturing excisable goods and clearing them based on agreed assessable values with buyers. The dispute revolves around interest levied on differential duty paid through supplementary invoices. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the interest amount of Rs.3,76,633/- against the appellant. The appellant relied on a recent decision of the Karnataka High Court in a similar case. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered various tribunal decisions and High Court judgments but found fault with the High Court's decision for not considering specific provisions. However, the Appellate Tribunal disagreed with this approach, stating that the Commissioner cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the High Court. The Tribunal referred to a judgment in favor of the assessee by the High Court in a similar case involving Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.

The Tribunal also examined a Supreme Court decision involving SKF India Ltd. where differential duty was paid later due to retrospective revision of prices. In the present case, the price escalation was due to increased input costs determined by industrial price indices. The supplementary invoices were issued to recover these costs, and enhanced duty was paid accordingly. The Tribunal differentiated this case from the SKF India Ltd. judgment, stating that the duty was paid on the differential price in the present case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders based on the Karnataka High Court's decision, providing relief to the appellant.