9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 497 - HC - Central ExciseRecovery of Interest Section 11AB - Differential duty - Period of limitation - whether the liability to pay interest on differential excise duty already paid at the time of issue of supplementary invoices would continue and if so can such interest liability be demanded beyond the normal period of limitation of one year from the date of supplementary invoice under Section 11A read with Section 11AB of the Act - Held that - Following decision of M/s Jai Bharat Maruti Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III 2013 (10) TMI 355 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT wherein it was held that period of one year would apply to the present case. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for setting aside a final order dated 20-7-2012 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi; Questions of law regarding the Tribunal's decision on interest liability, time limit for levy and recovery of interest under Section 11AB, application of time limit for issuing show cause notice, and Tribunal's reliance on sales tax case involving UP sales tax. Analysis: 1. The appellant filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to set aside the final order dated 20-7-2012 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, claiming substantial questions of law regarding the Tribunal's decision. The questions included whether the Tribunal should have followed a previous binding decision, rectified its own mistakes, and considered the time limit for levy and recovery of interest under Section 11AB against the assessee. The Tribunal's decision on interest liability and time limit for issuing show cause notice were also challenged. 2. The appellant, engaged in the business of manufacturing auto components, was issued show cause notices for different periods regarding interest liability on differential excise duty paid at the time of issuing supplementary invoices. The demand for interest was raised within the normal period of one year in some cases, which the assessee accepted and paid under protest. However, in cases where the extended period of limitation was invoked, the assessee contested the demand for interest before the Tribunal. The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the demands of interest, which were upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and the Tribunal. 3. The appellant contended that the present petition was covered by a decision of the High Court, where it was held that the period of limitation for recovery of the principal amount also applied to the claim for interest thereon. The High Court's decision in another case was cited, emphasizing that the department had no jurisdiction to issue show cause notices for interest after the expiry of the period of limitation. Similar views were expressed by other High Courts, supporting the application of a one-year period of limitation to claims for interest. 4. The High Court, after hearing arguments from both parties, found that the substantial questions of law were in favor of the appellant and against the Revenue. The Court referred to previous judgments and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal. The respondent did not dispute the applicability of the mentioned judgment, leading to a decision in favor of the appellant. 5. In conclusion, the High Court answered the substantial questions of law in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal based on the application of the one-year period of limitation to claims for interest. The Court's decision was supported by previous judgments and the respondent's acknowledgment of the relevant judgment.
|
