9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 1115 - AT - Central ExciseRecovery of erroneous Refund of interest on delayed payment of differential duty - price variation clause - Rejection on the ground that since the appellant was liable to pay interest on the price variation amount, he is not liable to get the refund thereof - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR 2019 (5) TMI 657 - SUPREME COURT has adjudicated the same issue i.e. whether the interest is payable on differential excise duty with retrospective effect that becomes payable on the basis of escalation clause, where it was held that The fact that it is known, later cannot detract from the fact, that the later discovered price would not be value at the time of removal. Most significantly, section 11A and section 11AB as it stood at the relevant time did not provide read with the rules any other point of time when the amount of duty could be said to be payable and so equally the interest. The appellant was liable to pay the interest on subsequent price variation with effect from the date of removal of the goods involved - the refund of the amount of interest already paid by the appellant was erroneous. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Liability of the appellant to pay interest for delayed payment of Central Excise duty against post price variation. 2. Claim for refund of interest on delayed payment of differential duty. 3. Interpretation of Section 11AB regarding payment of interest on differential excise duty. 4. Applicability of previous decisions in CCE vs SKF case and CCE vs International Auto Ltd. case. Analysis: Issue 1: The appellant was initially served with a show cause notice proposing recovery of non-payment of interest on delayed payment of Central Excise duty. The Tribunal denied the liability of the appellant to pay the interest for the delayed payment against post price variation. However, a refund claim was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner, which was later reviewed and a show cause notice was issued proposing recovery of the erroneously paid refund claim. Issue 2: The appellant's claim for refund of interest on delayed payment of differential duty was rejected on the grounds that since the appellant was liable to pay interest on the price variation amount, they were not entitled to a refund. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Steel Authority of India Ltd. case confirmed the liability of the assessee to pay interest along with the duty difference arising post final assessment of goods. Issue 3: The Tribunal analyzed the decision of the Apex Court and held that the appellant was liable to pay interest on subsequent price variation from the date of goods removal. The interpretation of Section 11AB was crucial in determining the liability of the appellant to pay interest on differential excise duty with retrospective effect. Issue 4: The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Apex Court in previous cases such as CCE vs SKF and CCE vs International Auto Ltd., which addressed similar issues regarding the liability to pay interest on differential excise duty. The Tribunal found the facts of the present case to be covered by the previous decisions, making the appellant liable to pay interest on subsequent price variation. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the order rejecting the appeal, stating that the appellant was liable to pay interest on subsequent price variation from the date of goods removal, and the refund of interest already paid was deemed erroneous based on the interpretation of Section 11AB and previous judicial decisions.
|
