9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the present case, the demand of interest involved is in respect of raising supplementary invoice for price revision, which is akin to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SKF India (2009 (7) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT). The submission of the learned Advocate that the decision of SKF India Ltd. (supra) would not apply in the case of provisional assessment, would be examined at the time of appeal hearing at length. applicant failed to make out a prima facie for waiver of predeposit of entire amount of interest - stay granted partly. - E/40397-40403/2014-SM - Misc. Order No.40611 to 40617/2014 - Dated:- 23-4-2014 - P K Das, J. For the Appellant : Mr Raghavan Ramabhadran, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr P Arul, Superi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Pune Vs. SKF India Ltd. 2009 (239) ELT 385 (SC). In that case, there was no provisional assessment. In the present case, admittedly, the goods were cleared under provisional assessment under Rule 7 of the said Rules. It is submitted that on plain reading of Rule 7(4), it is clearly apparent that interest is payable consequent to the finalization of assessment. In the present case, the appellant paid differential duty before finalization of the provisional assessment and therefore no interest is payable. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nagpur 2007 (209) ELT 280 which has been upheld by the Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal in the case of Cadbury India Ltd. (supra) is squarely applicable in the present case. He further submits that subsequently, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Excel Rubber Ltd. Vs. CCE 2011 (268) ELT 419 (Tri. LB) followed the earlier decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Cadbury India (supra) at para 42 of its decision. He submits that Revenue filed appeal against the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ispat Industries (supra). The SLP was dismissed. However, the question of law is kept open as reported in 2014 (301) ELT A70 (SC). 5. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the decision of the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tata Motors Ltd. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
