2011 (3) TMI 127 - HC - Central Excise

Appeal u/s 35G - Differential duty paid retrospectively - amount involved in this appeal is about Rs.20,000/- and as per policy introduced by the Central Government, the appeal is to be filed if the amount involved is more than Rs.2 lacs - Appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi regarding differential duty payment, interest, abuse of due process of law.

Issue 1: Differential Duty Payment
The appeal raised substantial questions of law regarding the legality of not paying interest on retrospectively revised assessable value of goods cleared to customers after the expiry of one year from the original duty payment date. The court deliberated on whether the respondents were within their rights to pay the differential duty but not the interest on it, and if they could simultaneously probate and approbate on the same issue. The judges analyzed if the respondents had abused due process of law by seeking to make voluntary duty payments under Section 11A(2B) while disregarding the caveat set out in Explanation 2 to the same section.

Issue 2: Amount Involved
The learned counsel for the revenue acknowledged that the amount in question was approximately Rs.20,000, falling below the threshold set by the Central Government policy requiring appeals to be filed for amounts exceeding Rs.2 lakhs. Despite refraining from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the court noted that due to the insignificance of the amount involved, the appeal was deemed liable for dismissal.

In this judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court considered an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, challenging an order by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The issues raised in the appeal pertained to differential duty payment, interest obligations, and potential abuse of due process of law by the respondents. The court examined the legality of not paying interest on retrospectively revised assessable values of goods, the permissibility of probating and approbating on the same issue while paying only the differential duty, and whether the respondents had circumvented legal safeguards while making voluntary duty payments. Despite refraining from commenting on the case's merits, the court emphasized that the appeal's dismissal was warranted due to the minimal amount at stake, as acknowledged by the revenue's counsel.