9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion and therefore the longer period of limitation is not invokable in the present case. The appellant is only liable to pay interest for the normal period as prescribed by law whereas in both the appeals substantial period is beyond limitation. For the purpose of computing the interest for the normal period the case is remanded back to the original authority to quantify the interest for the normal period of one year which the appellants will be liable to pay - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/20485/2018-SM, E/20494/2018-SM - Final Order Nos. 20566–20567/2019 - Dated:- 19-7-2019 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri. J.N. Somaiya Advocate For the Appellant Shri. Kanipakam Murali, Superintend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plementary invoices to their customers due to upward revision of cost of goods already cleared. Appellant paid the central excise duty along with education cess and secondary and higher education cess. However, interest on delayed payment of duty was not paid as per the provisions of Section 11AB/Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, a show-cause notice dated 18.12.2013 was issued proposing to recover the interest of ₹ 55,403/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand Four Hundred and Three only) on the differential duty of ₹ 12,05,025/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Five Thousand and Twenty Five only) paid on supplementary invoices. After following the due process, the Joint Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 10.11.2015 c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2019-TIOL-204-SC-LB has held that interest is payable on the differential duty paid through supplementary invoices. Learned counsel fairly conceded that after the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd., appellant has no case on merits but he says he has a very good case on limitation and subsequent demand in both the cases is barred by limitation. He further submitted that it is a settled law that time limit as prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act is also applicable for recovery of interest. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: a. CCE Vs. TVS Whirlpool Ltd. 1999 (10) TMI 701 b. Kwality Ice Cream Company Vs. UOI 2012 (281) E. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and then referred it to the Larger Bench and the Larger Bench has upheld the demand of interest on differential duty paid through supplementary invoices in the year 2019. He further submitted that there is no period of limitation prescribed for demand of interest under the law. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that it is a settled law that time limit as prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act is also applicable for recovery of interest in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of TVS Whirlpool Ltd. cited supra which has been followed by various High Courts in various decisions cited supra. Further I find that in the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, it will be beyond the period of o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
