Interest on excise duty paid through supplementary invoices upheld by Tribunal

The Tribunal, following the precedent set by the apex court in Commissioner v. SKF India Ltd., held that interest on excise duty paid through supplementary invoices due to price revision is payable. Despite arguments raised by the assessees regarding their specific case details and Revenue neutrality, the Tribunal upheld the impugned orders, citing adherence to the apex court's decision and rejecting the appeals.

---

---

Issues:
Whether interest is required to be paid on excise duty discharged by issuing supplementary invoices on account of price revision.

Analysis:
The issue in dispute revolved around the requirement of paying interest on excise duty discharged through supplementary invoices due to price revision. The Tribunal noted that the matter was settled by a recent decision of the apex court in Commissioner v. SKF India Ltd., which held that interest on differential duty paid as a result of issuing supplementary invoices due to retrospective price revision is indeed payable. The assessees argued that in their case, the price variation was known pursuant to the sales contract and was not contemplated at the time of goods removal. They relied on precedents such as E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CTI and CIT v. A. Gajapathy Naidu to support their contention. Additionally, they raised the issue of Revenue neutrality not being considered by the apex court in the SKF India Ltd. case. However, the Tribunal emphasized that since the matter was conclusively settled by the apex court and there was no room for departure from its decision, the Tribunal upheld the impugned orders and rejected the appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal, guided by the precedent set by the apex court in Commissioner v. SKF India Ltd., ruled that interest on excise duty paid through supplementary invoices due to price revision is indeed payable. Despite the arguments presented by the assessees regarding the specifics of their case and the issue of Revenue neutrality, the Tribunal held that it was bound by the apex court's decision and, therefore, upheld the impugned orders, ultimately rejecting the appeals.

---