9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f interest on account of Revenue Neutrality - Held that:- none of these two High Court orders were placed before the cases relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative. Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court held in CCE &C, Vadodara-II Vs Indeos ABS Ltd (2010 (3) TMI 656 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) that when supplies are made to the sister concerns then demand cannot be upheld on Revenue Neutrality which means both differential duty and interest cannot be demanded. Further, in view of Hon'ble Bombay High Courts order in the case of CCE Pune II Vs Siddheshwar Textile Mills Pvt.Ltd. (2014 (11) TMI 621 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) when duty demand itself is not sustainable on Revenue Neutrality, it will not be correct to demand interest on differential ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 628 (Guj.)] also upheld by Hon ble Supreme Court [2010 (267) ELT A 155(SC) ii) CCE Pune-III Vs Siddheshwar Textile Mills Pvt.Ltd. [2015 (320) ELT 524 (Bom.)] iii) P.T.C. Industries Ltd Vs CCE Jaipur-I [2003 (159) ELT 1046 (Tri-Del)] iv) CCE Jamshedpur Vs Jamshedpur Beverages [2007 (214) ELT 321 (SC)] 3. Shri Govind Jha (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that differential duty was paid on 06.08.2007 and show cause notice demanding interest was issued on 21.07.2008 which is well within one year from the date of payment of differential duty. That relevant date under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has to be mutatis mutandis read as date of payment of differential duty on which date interest was also required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued after a period of one year from the date of payment of differential duty. However, in the present case differential duty was paid on 06.08.2007 and show cause notice was issued on 21.07.2008 which is within a period of one year. Argument of the Appellant that period of one year should be calculated from the date of clearances is not correct because no return of payment of interest is required to be filed by Appellant as per Explanation-1(b)(i) (ii) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The relevant date for demanding interest will have to be mutatis mutandis, one year from the date of payment of interest made under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, because on the date of payment of duty only the exact amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stage of manufacture, however, if the Assessee is also entitled to Modvat credit on duty paid at each stage, then something which is required to be paid or remitted at the final stage could be set off or there is a revenue neutrality. That approach is a permissible approach. The only thing that Mr. Kantharia points out from this judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court is that the Supreme Court was dealing with the controversy of excise duty/additional excise duty and not interest. Therefore, this judgment is not a binding precedent. We are unable to agree. If the component of interest is on the tax or duty demanded on the product and if that duty or tax is liable to be set off or adjusted against the credit available at the intermediate stag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
