2006 (6) TMI 441 - AT - Central Excise

Interpretation of duty payment rules post goods clearance under Central Excise Act

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-III Versus KALYANI FORGE LTD.

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-III Versus KALYANI FORGE LTD. - 2007 (216) E.L.T. 104 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Interpretation of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding the payment of interest on duty.2. Determination of duty payment in cases of upward revision of prices after goods clearance.Analysis:Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 11ABThe appeal pertained to an Order-in-Appeal concerning the demand for interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and imposition of penalty by the Revenue. The respondents, manufacturers of goods falling under Chapters 87 & 84, had cleared their final products to customers at agreed rates in initial Purchase Orders. Subsequently, they claimed upward revision of prices due to increased input costs, which was accepted by buyers with retrospective effect. The respondents raised supplementary invoices and discharged differential duty liability immediately upon confirmation of the price revision. The Revenue issued show cause notices for interest under Section 11AB and penalty. The adjudicating authority ordered interest payment and imposed a penalty, which was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the Revenue's appeal.Issue 2: Duty Payment in Case of Price RevisionThe Revenue contended that interest under Section 11AB was payable as duty was paid subsequently on the upward price revision, which was actually payable on the first clearance itself. Conversely, the respondents argued that Section 11AB did not apply since there was no short payment of duty at the time of goods clearance based on the agreed value between the parties. The subsequent price revision was unknown to the respondents at the time of clearance. The Commissioner (Appeals) analyzed the situation and concluded that duty is to be determined based on the known value at the time of clearance, not on later price revisions. The Tribunal's precedent in a similar case supported the respondents' position.In conclusion, the Commissioner (Appeals) correctly interpreted Section 11AB, noting that duty payment is based on the value known at the time of clearance, and upheld that the respondents were not liable for interest under Section 11AB. The Tribunal affirmed the decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal based on the established legal principles and factual circumstances of the case.