9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1968X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that:- merely because the differential amount of duty is ascertained subsequent to the date of clearance, the due date of payment of duty never stands changed or extended and it would always relate to the date of removal of goods. Further, the Hon’ble Court held that the expression FOR under Rule 7(4) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 refers to the month for which the amount is determined pursua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a) endorsed again by the Supreme Court in the case of International Auto Limited (2010 (1) TMI 151 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). While following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SKF India Limited and International Auto Limited (supra) Bombay High Court clearly held that the judgment of Karnataka High Court does not reflect the good law in this regard as the SLP against that or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vised upward subsequent to the date of clearance of the respective goods. At the time of clearance of the goods the firm price in respect thereof was not known and therefore, the appellant paid duty on provisional price. They paid the differential duty when invoices were raised for differential prices when the final prices became known. The adjudicating authority has held that in such cases inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty is ascertained subsequent to the date of clearance, the due date of payment of duty never stands changed or extended and it would always relate to the date of removal of goods. Further, the Hon ble Court held that the expression FOR under Rule 7(4) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 refers to the month for which the amount is determined pursuant to the finalisation of price and hence interest liab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of SKF India Limited and International Auto Limited (supra) Bombay High Court clearly held that the judgment of Karnataka High Court does not reflect the good law in this regard as the SLP against that order was not dismissed by Supreme Court on merit. 3. In view of the foregoing, we find no merit in the appeal and same is therefore, dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
