2020 (2) TMI 499 - AT - Central Excise

Interest on differential payment of duty - price variation clause - matter was earlier repeatedly adjourned for awaiting the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur. Hon ble Apex Court vide Order dated 07.12.2015 in Steel Authority of India vs. CCE, Raipur 2015 (12) TMI 594 - SUPREME COURT has already referred the matter to the Hon ble Constitution Bench - HELD THAT - Keeping in view that the Hon ble Apex Court has decided the controversy involved in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and also keeping in view the absence of the appellant as on date, I deem it fit to dismiss the appeal not only for want of presence of the appellant but also for no merits in this appeal, as issue stands already decided against the appellant/assessee. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved: Whether interest is payable on differential payment of duty arising on price variation.

Analysis:
1. The judgment begins with the observation that the appellant did not appear for the hearing, and it was continuously adjourned awaiting a decision from the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a specific case.

2. The decision of the Constitution Bench, as reported in 2019 (366) ELT 769 (S.C.), was placed on record, and the key findings of the order were discussed. The Court emphasized that the expression "ought to have been paid" in Section 11AB should be interpreted based on the clear words used in the section and the rules, rather than the understanding presented by the referring Bench. The judgment highlighted that duty and interest should be paid for every removal of goods on or before the 6th day of the succeeding month.

3. The Court further elaborated on the retrospective operation of the escalation clause in cases of provisional assessment, emphasizing that the value of goods at the time of removal should be considered, even if the price is provisional and subject to variation. The judgment cited previous cases to support the interpretation of the provisions related to duty payment and interest.

4. The impugned appeal was reviewed, and it was noted that the issue revolved around whether interest is payable on differential payment of duty due to price variation. The Court concluded that this issue had already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a previous decision dated 08.05.2019, which favored the Revenue and went against the appellant/assessee.

5. Considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the absence of the appellant during the hearing, the Court deemed it appropriate to dismiss the appeal due to the lack of merit and the previous ruling against the appellant/assessee.

6. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the findings and decisions discussed in the judgment.