2013 (1) TMI 148 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit - Stay of recovery - Demand of interest - On issuing supplementary invoices - Increase in labour and material cost - the price was increased in view of the increase in view of the increase in the electricity tariff - Held that - Following the decision in case of BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD.(2010 (4) TMI 439 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) that price escalation is due to increase in input labout and other costs which was determined by All India Industrial Price Indices, the demand of interest on differential duty is not sustainable. The price was increased in view of the increase in the electricity tariff by the Power Grid Corporation of India. Waive the pre-deposit

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of interest and penalty in a case involving differential duty payment.
2. Interpretation of liability to pay interest in relation to increase in labor and material costs.
3. Application of judicial precedents from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in determining liability for interest on differential duty.

Analysis:
The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit of interest and penalty amounting to Rs. 2,05,68,151/-, having already paid the differential duty. The demand for interest was linked to the duty, which the appellant later recovered through supplementary invoices due to increased labor and material costs. The Revenue cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a specific case to assert the appellant's liability for interest. However, the appellant referenced a ruling from the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, which held that interest on differential duty may not be sustainable if price escalation is attributable to factors like increased input labor and material costs determined by industrial price indices.

In the context of the present case, the price escalation was a result of increased electricity tariff by a specific corporation. Drawing from the precedent set by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, which considered the impact of input costs on price escalation, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument for waiver of pre-deposit. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to waive the pre-deposit requirement for interest and penalty and stayed the recovery process during the appeal's pendency, thereby allowing the stay petition.

This judgment underscores the significance of legal precedents in determining liability for interest on differential duty payments. It highlights the need to consider the specific circumstances leading to price escalation and the factors contributing to cost variations while assessing the applicability of interest obligations. The decision showcases the Tribunal's adherence to established judicial principles in granting relief to the appellant based on the interpretation of relevant case laws.