2011 (7) TMI 624 - AT - Central Excise

Period of limitation - interest on differential duty paid on issue of supplementary invoice - Held that - Point of limitation is not a pure question of law and is always question of law as well as of facts. Lower authorities in this appeal should consider the question of limitation while adjudicating the matter in de novo proceedings and also for the period within limitation. Impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to consider the same afresh only on the question of limitation as on merits the appellants have no case as interest is payable on the supplementary invoices by the appellants - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Interest on differential duty paid on issue of supplementary invoices beyond the period of limitation.

Analysis:
The appeal in question pertains to the demand of interest on the differential duty paid on supplementary invoices issued during specific periods. The appellant argued that the demand for interest is time-barred as the show cause notice was issued after a significant delay. Reference was made to a recent Division Bench judgment in a similar matter, which remanded the case to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue of limitation. On the contrary, the learned SDR contended that there is no limitation for demanding interest, citing a judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and a Tribunal judgment supporting this view.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal observed that the issue at hand concerns interest paid on differential duty beyond the period of limitation for invoking the extended period. It was noted that the show cause notices lacked clarity on the reasons for exceeding the limitation period. Drawing from the precedent set by the Division Bench in a comparable case, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh consideration on the limitation aspect. The Tribunal emphasized that the question of limitation is not merely a legal one but also involves factual considerations.

The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the need to address the limitation issue adequately, as highlighted in the Division Bench's previous ruling. The lower authorities were instructed to re-examine the case focusing solely on the limitation aspect, ensuring that the principles of natural justice are followed. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh assessment, with the understanding that interest is payable on the supplementary invoices by the appellants. Consequently, the appeal was allowed for remand, emphasizing the importance of considering the limitation aspect in the adjudication process.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment underscored the significance of addressing the limitation issue concerning interest on differential duty paid on supplementary invoices. By remanding the matter for a fresh assessment, the Tribunal aimed to ensure a thorough examination of the limitation aspect while upholding the obligation of the appellants to pay interest on the supplementary invoices. The decision prioritized procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles in the adjudication process, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review focusing on the limitation issue.