2015 (5) TMI 134 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of interest on the differential duty - Penalty under Rule 25(1) (a) of CER, 2001 - Interest under Rule 7(4) of CER, 2002 - Provisional assessment - held that - Appellants paid differential duty on the amount of escalation of price and raised supplementary invoices to their customers - Respondents are liable for payment of interest and accordingly the impugned order is liable to be set aside to the extent. However, taking into the overall facts of the case and also in view of the conflicting decisions of various judicial forms for and against the interest payment till it was settled by the Apex Court in the order the respondents are not liable for any penalty By respectfully following the Apex Court judgment 2009 (7) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT and also the Tribunal s decision in the respondents own case 2015 (5) TMI 115 - CESTAT CHENNAI , Revenue s appeal is rejected and the impugned order is upheld - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of interest on differential duty paid on price variation raised on supplementary invoices.
2. Demand of interest on differential duty paid consequent to finalization of provisional assessments.

Analysis:
1. The first issue involved the demand of interest on the differential duty paid subsequently on the price variation raised on supplementary invoices. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of interest and imposed a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. The Revenue filed an appeal against the impugned order. The Revenue argued that interest is payable from the date the duty amount is due as per Rule 7(4) of CER, 2002, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in CCE Vs. SKF India Ltd. The respondents contended that interest is not chargeable as they had already paid the differential duty on their own calculation before finalization. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court judgment and held that the respondents are liable for payment of interest, setting aside the impugned order partially and waiving the penalty due to conflicting decisions on interest payment.

2. The second issue pertained to the demand of interest on the differential duty paid consequent to the finalization of provisional assessments. The Tribunal cited a similar case decided by the Mumbai High Court and a previous decision of the same Bench in favor of the respondent. By following the Apex Court judgment and the Tribunal's decision in the respondent's case, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal and upheld the impugned order. The appeal related to the finalization of provisional assessments for a specific period, and the Tribunal found in favor of the respondent based on legal precedents and previous decisions. The judgment concluded by partly allowing one appeal and rejecting the other, with the penalty being waived in the first case and the impugned order being upheld in the second case.