2011 (6) TMI 483 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - Interest on differential amount paid on supplementary invoices - It is to be noted that the assessee was able to demand from its customers the balance of the higher prices by virtue of retrospective revision of the prices. It, therefore, follows that at the time of sale the goods carried a higher value and those were cleared on short payment of duty - it was clearly a case of short payment of duty though indeed completely unintended and without any element of deceit etc - Decided against the assessee

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against recovery of interest on differential amount paid on supplementary invoices.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the order-in-appeal upholding the recovery of interest on the differential amount paid on supplementary invoices. The issue revolved around the charging of interest on these invoices. The Ld. SDR argued that the issue was settled against the assessee based on a decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a specific case. The Supreme Court held that the assessee demanded the balance of higher prices from customers due to retrospective price revision, resulting in goods being cleared on short payment of duty. The payment of differential duty was made later through supplementary invoices, constituting a case of short payment of duty under relevant sections of the Act. The appellant had indeed charged the differential amount through these supplementary invoices. Therefore, the Ld. SDR, following the Supreme Court decision, saw no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' findings. The Commissioner (Appeals) had modified the lower adjudicating authority's order to a certain extent, which was not challenged by the department. Consequently, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)'s order was upheld entirely, and the appeal was dismissed.

This judgment highlights the application of relevant legal provisions regarding the recovery of interest on differential amounts paid on supplementary invoices. The decision was based on a precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar case, emphasizing the unintentional nature of the short payment of duty in such situations. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and judicial precedents in resolving disputes related to indirect taxation. The lack of challenge by the department regarding the modifications made by the Commissioner (Appeals) further solidified the decision to uphold the lower authorities' findings. Overall, the judgment provides clarity on the legal principles governing the charging of interest on differential amounts in indirect tax matters, ensuring consistency and compliance with established legal interpretations.