2015 (10) TMI 764

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ts customer, M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. was known to the appellant beforehand, even though the invoice was raised subsequently at the end of the year. Since the additional consideration received on account of surcharge is relatable to the goods removed from the factory on different dates, the appellant was under statutory obligation to discharge the duty liability during the relevant month, during which the goods have been removed from the factory. Since the duty liability has not been discharged within the stipulated period, the appellant is liable to pay interest on such delayed payment of duty, for the reason that interest is compensatory in character, and the recipient of the tax dues is eligible to be compensated in the form of interest, for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rom its customer, M/s. JSW Steel Ltd, the interest liability is fastened on the appellant, with reference to the date of clearances of goods on different dates during the course of the year. In other words, according to Revenue, once the payment received is treated as the price of goods cleared on different dates during the whole year, the duty becomes payable on the dates when such goods are removed, and hence the interest liability starts from the date of such clearances. Accordingly, Revenue has pleaded for setting aside the impugned order. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the stand of the department and the appeal of the Revenue was allowed by setting aside the order dated 7-6-2006 passed by the adjudicating authority. Being aggr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... factory. As per the concept of transaction value, the amount charged over and above the sale price, should also form part of the transaction value, for the purpose of payment of central excise duty, which has been accepted by the appellant in the present case. The fact of receiving of surcharge from its customer, M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. was known to the appellant beforehand, even though the invoice was raised subsequently at the end of the year. Since the additional consideration received on account of surcharge is relatable to the goods removed from the factory on different dates, the appellant was under statutory obligation to discharge the duty liability during the relevant month, during which the goods have been removed from the factory. Si .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X