Tribunal rules against appellant's request for stay on interest for duty differential

The Tribunal, relying on precedents such as CCE, Pune vs. SKF India Ltd., ruled against the appellant's request for a stay and waiver on interest for differential duty paid on bulk drug clearances to a sister unit. Despite the appellant's absence, the Tribunal found in favor of the Revenue, directing the appellant to pay the interest within six weeks. The decision emphasized that the appellant's argument of revenue neutrality due to CENVAT credit availability was not tenable, citing relevant case law. Compliance was required by a specified date following the Tribunal's judgment.

---

---

Issues:
- Stay and waiver for demand of interest on differential duty payable for clearances of bulk drugs to sister unit.

Analysis:
The appellant sought stay and waiver for the demand of interest on the differential duty payable for clearances of bulk drugs to their sister unit. The differential duty had been paid, and the main issue was whether interest was payable in this situation. The appellant argued that since the clearances were made to the sister unit, which could take CENVAT credit, it was a revenue-neutral situation, and thus, the demand for the payment of differential duty did not apply.

The absence of the appellant did not deter the Tribunal from making a decision on the stay application. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Pune vs. SKF India Ltd., the Tribunal proceeded with the case. The learned Superintendent (AR) highlighted that there was another demand against the same assessee for a different period, which the appellant had chosen to withdraw the appeal for. However, the current appeal and stay application had not been withdrawn. The learned Superintendent (AR) further emphasized that the issue at hand was covered by the decisions of both the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SKF India Ltd. and the Tribunal in the case of Bayer ABS Ltd. vs. CCE, Vadodara.

After considering the submissions made by the learned Superintendent (AR), the Tribunal found them to be correct. Consequently, the appellant was directed to deposit the amount of interest demanded within six weeks from the date of the order and report compliance by a specified date. The judgment was pronounced and dictated in open court by the Tribunal.

---