2014 (9) TMI 765 - AT - Central Excise

Interest under Section 11AB - Differential duty - the differential duty became payable only after Note 5 to the Chapter 15 of the First Schedule to CETA, 1985 was given retrospective effect and introduced as part of the Act - Application of decision of Apex Court in the case of M/s SKF India Ltd 2009 (7) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT - Held that - even though a supplementary invoice is issued subsequently by the supplier of the goods to the buyer, in reality the price determined is the one which should have been the price at the time of removal. - This is the logic that is behind the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court. - A principle laid down or a ratio laid down in the case of transaction between two parties by the Hon ble Supreme Court cannot be applied to a situation where the law is amended with retrospective effect by the legislature. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved: Date for calculating interest under Section 11AB on demand of differential duty on 'Refined Edible Oil'.

Analysis:
1. The issue in this appeal pertains to determining the date from which interest under Section 11AB is to be calculated in the case of a demand for differential duty on 'Refined Edible Oil'. The appellant, a manufacturer of the said product, faced a demand for duty due to a change in the classification and levy of duty on the product. The history of the levy on the product, including changes in tariff rates and introduction of Chapter Note 4 and 5, is crucial to understanding the context of the appeal.

2. The appellant had paid the demanded amount in instalments after an investigation initiated by the department in 2005. The retrospective amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2005, through Chapter Note 5, deemed the refining processes as manufacturing from 1-3-1986. The Commissioner (Appeals) determined the interest payable from 1st April 2003, the date when the appellant became liable to pay the differential duty. The appellant contested this, arguing that interest should be calculated from 1st July 2005, the date when Note 5 became part of the Act.

3. The appellant relied on a Tribunal decision in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing that interest liability arises from the first day of the succeeding month in which duty ought to have been paid. The statutory provision of Section 11AB supports this interpretation, indicating that interest is payable from the month following when duty should have been paid. The appellant's liability for interest, therefore, arises only after the retrospective effect of Note 5, aligning with the Tribunal's precedent.

4. The Respondent argued that the decision in the case of CCE, Pune v. SKF India Ltd. should apply, asserting that interest becomes payable from the date of clearance. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, distinguishing between situations involving retrospective legislative changes and transactions between parties. The Tribunal emphasized that the logic behind the Supreme Court's decision in a transactional context cannot be applied to scenarios where laws are amended retrospectively.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, granting consequential relief. The decision clarified that interest on the demanded amount of differential duty on 'Refined Edible Oil' should be calculated from the date when the legislative amendment, Note 5, came into effect, rather than from the date of clearance or an earlier period.

(Order dictated and pronounced in open Court)