2016 (12) TMI 923 - AT - Central Excise

Liability of interest - there is no net short fall in payment of duty after adjusting the excess payment of duty paid on the other products - Held that - I find that the matter has been squarely covered by the ratio laid down by Hon ble Karnataka in the case of Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (10) TMI 201 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , where it was held that after the final assessment order is passed if the duty paid in the entire scheme of Rule 7, there is no indication that when an asseseee is permitted to pay duty in pursuance of a provisional assessment order, if he is dealing with more than one goods, such assessee has to be treated separately. When there is no short fall in payment of duty after adjusting excess payment on other products, interest liability will not arise. In the circumstances, appeal is allowed in toto - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Provisional assessment under Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2002
- Appropriation of interest paid on duty short paid
- Application of interest provisions pre and post amendment to Rule 7 (4) of Central Excise Rules, 2002

Provisional Assessment under Rule 7:
The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of various products and opted for provisional assessment under Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The dispute arose regarding the finalization of provisional assessment, leading to a differential duty amount. The original authority confirmed a short payment of duty along with interest. The appellants contended that interest should only be levied on the net shortfall in payment of duty after adjusting excess payments made on other products. The appellant relied on relevant case laws to support their argument.

Appropriation of Interest Paid:
The main issue in the appeal was the appropriation of interest paid by the appellant. The appellant argued that interest should not be liable when there is no net shortfall in duty payment after adjusting excess payments made on other products. They emphasized that interest should only be levied on the amount determined as duty upon finalization of provisional assessment. The appellant cited specific case laws to support their contention, highlighting the importance of considering the total duty payable for all goods under provisional assessment.

Application of Interest Provisions:
The discussion revolved around the application of interest provisions before and after the amendment to Rule 7 (4) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant argued that interest provisions should only apply to the amount due upon finalization of provisional assessment, considering the period involved in the assessment before the amendment. The appellant relied on case laws to support their interpretation of the interest provisions. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and relevant case laws, allowed the appeal in its entirety, emphasizing that interest liability would not arise if there was no shortfall in duty payment after adjusting excess payments on other products.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of provisional assessment, appropriation of interest paid, and the application of interest provisions, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and decisions made by the Tribunal.