2011 (7) TMI 625 - 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.

Summary

Issues involved:
Interest on differential duty paid on issue of supplementary invoices; Limitation period for demand of interest.

Analysis:

1. Interest on differential duty on supplementary invoices: The appeal in this case was directed against an order dated 6.6.2008 regarding interest on the differential duty paid on supplementary invoices. The appellant argued that the demand for interest on the differential duty between December 2003 to July 2006 was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued on 29.1.2007. The appellant relied on a Division Bench judgment in a similar case that remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue of limitation.

2. Limitation period for demand of interest: The learned SDR contended that there was no limitation for the demand of interest, citing a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and a Tribunal judgment supporting this view. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions from both sides, noted that the issue revolved around interest paid on differential duty on supplementary invoices beyond the limitation period and within one year from the issuance of the show cause notice. The Tribunal emphasized that the point of limitation is not solely a question of law but also a question of facts.

3. The Tribunal referred to the Division Bench's decision in a similar case, where the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to address the contention regarding the bar of limitation. The Tribunal highlighted the need for the lower authorities to consider the question of limitation while adjudicating the matter anew and within the period of limitation. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the adjudicating authority to re-examine the issue solely on the question of limitation, as the appellant had no case on merits for interest payment on the supplementary invoices.

4. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of following the principles of natural justice in reconsidering the matter solely on the aspect of limitation. The lower authorities were directed to decide on the demand for interest within the period of limitation. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 14.7.2011.