2011 (12) TMI 452 - AT - Central Excise

Interest demand - whether the interest is required to be paid on the differential duty paid at the time of clearance of the goods on account of supplementary invoices - Held that - Following decision in the case of CCE Pune v. SKF India Ltd. referred (2009 (7) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT). It is also seen that the interest amount was deposited by the appellant only after issuance of two notices to them. It is also seen that the appellants have never claimed refund of the said amount on the ground that no show cause notice stands issued to them the order of the adjudicating authority is only confirmation of above deposit amount of interest. Further as rightly argued by the learned SDR no time-limit has been prescribed under the law for issuance of show cause notice for recovery of interest amount. The interest being appendix to the principal amount is required to be paid suo motu by an assessee - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability to pay interest on additional duty.
2. Requirement of show cause notice for confirmation of interest.
3. Time limit for issuing show cause notice for interest.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the liability of the appellant to pay interest on the additional duty due to the escalation clause in the agreement. The appellant cleared goods to Railways on a provisional basis, and upon finalization of assessment, paid the additional duty. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed the deposit of interest by the appellant, which was appealed against before the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The appellant argued that the Revenue was obligated to issue a show cause notice before confirming the interest payment, citing the legal position established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a relevant case. The appellant contended that the absence of a show cause notice made the order unsustainable and sought its setting aside.

3. The Revenue countered by stating that although a show cause notice was not issued, a notice for the deposit of interest amount was served, which the appellant complied with. The Revenue argued that there was no legal requirement for a show cause notice specifically for the confirmation of interest, as it is considered an appendix to the principal amount. The Revenue also highlighted the absence of a time limit for issuing a show cause notice for interest recovery, indicating that such a notice could still be issued even if the appellant's objection was accepted.

4. In the judgment, it was noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had already settled the issue of interest payment on differential duty. The appellant had deposited the interest amount after receiving two notices, and had not sought a refund based on the absence of a show cause notice. The judgment emphasized that there is no prescribed time limit for issuing a show cause notice for interest recovery, and interest is considered an integral part of the principal amount, requiring self-payment by the assessee. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant was rejected as there was no justifiable reason to interfere with the lower authorities' order.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal aspects surrounding the liability for interest payment on additional duty and the necessity of a show cause notice in such circumstances.