9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that interest is liable to be paid from the date of original clearance of goods till the date of payment of differential duty on supplementary invoices. Regarding time limitation - when the normal time limit prescribed is one year from the relevant date for recovery of the principal amount, it is reasonable to adopt the same period for recovery of interest as well. Therefore in the instant case, we are of the view that Department should have initiated the proceedings for recovery of interest within a period of one year from the date of filing of monthly returns. Since the show-cause notice for payment of interest has been issued only on 20.01.2010 for recovery of interest for the period June 2007 to December 2007, it will be beyond the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity vide his order dated 27.12.2010. This order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide her order dated 30.06.2011. Hence the present appeal. 2. The main contention of the assessee in the present appeal is that the show-cause notice dated 20.01.2010 issued for demand of interest on the differential duty paid during June to December 2007 would be hit by limitation. They have contended that the Department is required to issue a show-cause notice under Section 11A within the normal period of one year even for demand of interest. They have relied upon the following case law to support their view: a) M/s. UCAL Fuel Systems Ltd. Vs. CCE, reported in 2010-TIOL-127-CESTAT-MAD b) CC Vs. T.V.S. Whirlpool Ltd., reported in 1996 (86) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame has been issued beyond the normal period of time limit of one year available under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. 6.1. The question of liability for payment of interest has been considered at length and settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CCE Vs. SKF India Ltd. reported in 2009 (239) E.L.T. 385 wherein it has been held that whenever the assessee recovered differential price by raising supplementary invoices and paid differential duty it implies that there was a short payment of duty though completely unintended and without any element of deceit and such payment of differential duty clearly came under sub-section (2B) of Section 11A and attract levy of interest under Section 11AB of the Act. The Apex C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasonable that the period of limitation that applies to a claim for the principal amount should also apply to the claim for interest thereon. 7. Respectfully following the said decision, we hold that when the normal time limit prescribed is one year from the relevant date for recovery of the principal amount, it is reasonable to adopt the same period for recovery of interest as well. Therefore in the instant case, we are of the view that Department should have initiated the proceedings for recovery of interest within a period of one year from the date of filing of monthly returns. Since the show-cause notice for payment of interest has been issued only on 20.01.2010 for recovery of interest for the period June 2007 to December 2007, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
