2022 (1) TMI 757 - AT - Central Excise

Liability to pay interest on differential duty - goods cleared from depot - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that differential duty and interest is payable in principal. However, the appellant have raised dispute about calculation of duty. It is their submission that if the cum-duty price is considered the duty amount will come to ₹ 12,95,181/- instead of total differential duty paid amounting to ₹ 15,01,214/-. This amount is sufficient to meet the differential duty of ₹ 12,95,181/- and ₹ 2,06,033/- towards interest. Accordingly, the duty of ₹ 15,01,214/- paid by them may be considered as interest and duty and there is no further interest liability. The cum-duty benefit is legally available to the assessee. Statue provides that whenever duty is calculated, it should be calculated considering cum-duty price. However, there is no findings on the facts that whether price claimed by the appellant is cum-duty or otherwise. Therefore, only for the purpose of recalculation of value and verifying related documents, the matter needs to be remanded. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
Whether the appellant is liable to pay interest on the differential duty paid for goods cleared from the depot.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad involved the issue of liability to pay interest on the differential duty paid by the appellant for goods cleared from the depot. The appellant did not appear, and the Revenue relied on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Amit Agro Industries Limited vs. CCE, Ghaziabad. The Revenue argued that the cum-duty price was available, justifying the duty demand and interest payment by the appellant. The Tribunal noted that while there was no dispute on the payment of differential duty and interest in principle, the appellant contested the calculation of duty. The appellant claimed that considering the cum-duty price, the duty amount should be lower than the total paid, covering both duty and interest. The Tribunal disagreed with the Adjudicating Authority's finding that denied the cum-duty benefit to the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized that the cum-duty benefit is legally available to the assessee, and duty calculation should consider the cum-duty price. However, as there were no findings on whether the price claimed by the appellant was cum-duty or not, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter for recalculation of value and verification of related documents. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand.