2018 (6) TMI 861 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of Interest on Differential Duty - finalization of provisional assessment - Held that - The entire differential duty including cess as applicable amounting to ₹ 95,94,137/- was paid on 30.04.2010 itself much before the finalization of assessment which is dated 07.09.2010 and therefore there was no duty payable by the appellant consequent to the determination of duty payable on finalization of provisional assessment. It is a settled position of law that when there are diametrically opposite decisions of High Courts are available, then, with highest respects, it is construction which favours the assessee must be adopted. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Refund of interest paid on differential duty under Rule 7 (4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
- Applicability of decisions of different High Courts on the refund claim.
- Interpretation of conflicting decisions of High Courts in similar cases.
- Legal principles governing the resolution of conflicting judicial decisions.

Analysis:
1. Refund of Interest Paid on Differential Duty:
The case involved a dispute regarding the refund of interest paid by the appellants on the differential duty under Rule 7 (4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants claimed refund of the interest amount paid, arguing that they were not required to pay interest as the duty was already settled before the final assessment. The Commissioner (Appeals) initially allowed the refund, but the department challenged this decision. The Tribunal noted that the differential duty had been paid before the final assessment, and relying on earlier decisions, including those of the Bombay High Court, allowed the appeal, granting the appellants the refund of the interest paid.

2. Applicability of High Court Decisions:
The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in a specific case to disallow the refund claim. In contrast, the appellants cited judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and previous Tribunal orders in their favor. The Tribunal considered the conflicting decisions of different High Courts and emphasized that when faced with such discrepancies, the construction favoring the assessee should be adopted. Citing legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's stance, the Tribunal upheld its previous decisions in the appellants' favor, allowing the appeal for the refund of interest.

3. Interpretation of Conflicting High Court Decisions:
The Tribunal analyzed the conflicting decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts of Allahabad and Bombay regarding the refund claim. By referring to legal principles and previous rulings, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of adopting an interpretation that benefits the assessee in cases where High Courts have differing opinions. The Tribunal's decision to uphold its previous judgments and grant the refund of interest paid was based on this legal interpretation and the application of relevant legal principles.

4. Legal Principles Governing Conflicting Judicial Decisions:
In resolving the conflicting decisions of different High Courts, the Tribunal followed established legal principles. It highlighted the need to favor the assessee when faced with contradictory judgments, citing relevant Supreme Court decisions. By aligning with its earlier rulings and considering the legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants were entitled to the refund of the interest paid on the differential duty. The decision underscored the significance of legal consistency and adherence to principles favoring the taxpayer in resolving such disputes.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, legal arguments, and the Tribunal's rationale in granting the refund of interest paid by the appellants on the differential duty.