2015 (6) TMI 223 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of interest - Delayed payment of duty - Supplementary invoices - Held that - appellant has paid the differential duty against the supplementary invoices raised by them. Further, they have failed to pay the interest. The issue has been settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of SKF India Ltd. (2009 (7) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT) and International Auto Ltd. (2010 (1) TMI 151 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). No infirmity in the impugned order - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Demand of interest against delayed payment of duty on supplementary invoices.

Analysis:

The judgment in question dealt with the demand of interest against the delayed payment of duty on supplementary invoices raised by the appellant. The adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 31,944, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The issue revolved around whether the appellant was liable to pay interest on the delayed payment of duty. The Ld. AR relied on decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to support the contention, emphasizing the importance of Section 11A of the Act in dealing with recovery of duty not levied or paid. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had paid the differential duty but failed to pay the interest, which was a crucial aspect of the case.

The Tribunal examined the relevant legal provisions and previous decisions, including the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax (UP) Vs. Kanhai Ram Thekedar and K. Ramkumar Vs. CCE. It was highlighted that the appellant had corrected the value of the goods through supplementary invoices, leading to an enhanced duty. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SKF India Ltd. and International Auto Ltd. was cited to emphasize the liability to pay interest under Section 11AB of the Act for loss of revenue due to short-payment or short-levy on the date of removal. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's case fell within the purview of the legal framework and upheld the demand for interest on delayed payment of duty.

In light of the legal provisions and precedents cited, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order. The judgment reiterated the significance of the changes in the recovery of duty under the Act post the amendments introduced in 2001 and 2003. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was deemed directly applicable to the facts of the case, leading to the rejection of the appeal filed by the party. The Tribunal's analysis underscored the importance of complying with the statutory provisions regarding the payment of duty and interest to prevent revenue loss and ensure adherence to the legal framework governing such matters.