9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 953X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir sister concern M/s. JSW Steel as per the agreement entered into with them. As per Article 8.8 of the Agreement, for eight tax years beginning with the tax year in which the first delivery of the product is made by the appellant within 30 days after the receipt of an invoice from the seller, the buyer will pay to the seller a surcharge on all the product delivered during such period as measured by any taxes on its total income for such year. In other words, when the goods were supplied, the appellant received some consideration for the same from their buyer. Thereafter, at the end of the financial year, they received an additional consideration as surcharge. It is the case of the department that in terms of Rule 5 of Central Excise (Val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 11AB, the expression "ought to have been paid" would mean the time when the price was agreed upon by the seller and the buyer does not square with our understanding of the clear words used in Section 11AB and as the rules proclaim otherwise and it provides for the duty to be paid for every removal of goods on or before the 6th day of the succeeding month. Interpreting the words in the manner contemplated by the Bench which referred the matter would result in doing violence to the provisions of the Act and the Rules which we have interpreted. We have already noted that when an assessee in similar circumstances resorts to provisional assessment upon a final determination of the value consequently, the duty and interest dates back to the mon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We 114 find no merit in the appeals. The appeals will stand dismissed." He fairly submits that the case is now decided by the apex court in favour of the Revenue and against the appellant. Therefore, the interest has to be paid on the amount of Central Excise duty discharged latter due to retrospective increase in the price of the goods. 4. Learned Departmental Representative agrees with the submissions of the learned counsel and that the case is covered by the decision rendered in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra). 5. In view of the above, we find that the appellant is liable to pay interest and the appeal filed by the appellant challenging the same is not sustainable. The impugned order is upheld and the appeal is reje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
