2016 (12) TMI 1265 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - Demand of differential duty - Penalty - Interest - Price escalation on the goods - Held that - The value was escalated subsequent to the clearance of the goods by the buyer. The appellant have paid the duty without any contest to the demand. In this fact there is no reason to invoke Section 11AC for the penalty. Moreover the issue of interest is still debatable; therefore there cannot be malafide intention on the part of the appellant with intention to evade payment of duty. Considering the legal position of chargeability of interest which is highly debatable issue and therefore it cannot be said that the appellant had any malafide intention therefore this is not a case for imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act - Appeal dismissed - decided in favor of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC for demand of differential duty.
2. Interpretation of provisions for charging interest on delayed payment of duty due to price escalation.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the respondent clearing goods to customers based on purchase orders, with subsequent price amendments leading to differential duty demand. The original authority imposed penalty and interest under Section 11AC and 11AB, respectively. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld demand and interest but set aside the penalty. The Revenue challenged this, arguing for penalty imposition due to extended period and suppression of fact. The respondent contended no intention to evade duty on escalated price post-clearance, citing various judgments on interest debatability. The Tribunal noted duty payment on escalated value without contest, absolving the appellant of malafide intent. Referring to the BIL Metal Industries case, the Tribunal highlighted the issue of interest leviability on enhanced value at supplementary invoice issuance. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to drop the penalty under Section 11AC, considering the debatable nature of interest chargeability.

2. The main issue revolved around whether interest was chargeable on duty paid for escalated value post-clearance. The Tribunal observed no knowledge of differential value at clearance, leading to duty payment without contest. Citing the BIL Metal Industries case, the Tribunal noted the High Court's focus on interest leviability at supplementary invoice issuance, confirming the rule on interest but not explicitly addressing penalties. Given the debatable nature of interest chargeability, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant lacked malafide intent, thus supporting the Commissioner's decision to drop the penalty under Section 11AC. The Tribunal emphasized the legal complexity surrounding interest chargeability due to price escalation, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to drop the penalty under Section 11AC, emphasizing the lack of malafide intent on the appellant's part regarding duty payment on escalated value post-clearance. The case highlighted the ongoing debate on interest chargeability in such scenarios, referencing relevant judgments to support the decision.