9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 915 - AT - Central ExcisePayment of interest on Central Excise duty - revenue neutrality - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that it is a case of revenue neutrality, which means whatever duty has been paid by the appellant and the same is entitled as cenvat credit to the appellants themselves. As it is a revenue neutral situation, it is held that no interest is payable by the appellant as held by this Tribunal in the case of M/S. JAI BALAJI INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOLPUR 2023 (6) TMI 1102 - CESTAT KOLKATA wherein it has been held that we hold that it is the revenue neutral situation, no duty is payable by the appellant therefore whatever duty paid by the appellant Cenvat credit of the same has been availed by the sister unit, question of payment of interest does not arise. Thus, no interest is payable by the appellant as it is a revenue neutral situation. Accordingly, the demand of interest is set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the challenge of payment of interest on Central Excise duty confirmed during the period January, 2000 to December, 2004. The key issues include the computation of assessable value of goods cleared to job workers, demand of duty, revenue neutrality, interest payment, and the role of Committee of Disputes in resolving disputes. Excise Appeal No. 396 of 2006: The appellant, engaged in manufacturing steel products, challenged the payment of interest on Central Excise duty confirmed for the period January, 2000 to December, 2004. The issue revolved around the computation of assessable value of goods cleared to job workers and the demand of duty. The Tribunal held that in a revenue neutral situation, where duty paid is entitled as cenvat credit to the appellant, no interest is payable. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal set aside the demand of interest. Excise Appeal No. 914 of 2011: In this case, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for demanding duty on goods cleared to job workers from July, 2000 to December, 2004. Despite a resolution by the Committee of Disputes (COD) suggesting conciliation and finding the demand to be revenue neutral, the revenue department insisted on recovery. The Tribunal upheld the order dismissing the appeal for recovery of duty, as the appellant did not challenge the confirmation of demand. Consequently, the refund claims were rejected, emphasizing the importance of challenging relevant aspects of the order.
|
