2015 (10) TMI 570 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Allows Petition Title Change & Upholds Interest Demand

Tamilnadu Petroproducts Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-I

The Tribunal allowed the change of cause title in the petition and disposed of the matter accordingly. Regarding the appeal against the Commissioner's ... Demand of interest - belated payment of differential duty - Held that:- There is no demand of central excise duty as the appellants paid differential duty by self-assessment under Section 11A (2B). The adjudicating authority dealt the issue in detail at para 10 to 15 and clearly held that assessee are covered under sub-section (2B) of Section 11A of Central Excise Act. I find that when appellant could not quantify the value as per CAS, they ought to have opted for provisional assessment. Instead they chose to pay differential duty for every quarter on self-assessment. Once the differential duty is paid it is covered under Section 11A (2B) and interest is automatic. - Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the subsequent judgement in the case of CCE Vs International Auto Ltd. (2010 (1) TMI 151 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) also upheld that demand of interest under Section 11AB by referring to their order in the case of SKF India Ltd. (2009 (7) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT). - issue relating to demand of interest on the differential duty paid stands settled by the apex court. By respectfully following the judgement of apex court, I hold that appellants are liable to pay interest demanded in the impugned order - Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Change of cause title in a petition.2. Appeal against Commissioner's order regarding interest on belated payment of differential duty.3. Demand of interest under Section 11AB on differential duty paid belatedly.Analysis:1. The appellant filed a petition for a change of cause title, which was allowed by the Tribunal, directing the registry to amend the cause title as per the request. The matter was disposed of accordingly.2. The appeal was against the Commissioner's order regarding the demand of interest on the belated payment of differential duty by the appellant. The appellant had paid the duty on a higher value as per Tribunal's order and subsequently calculated and paid the correct value as per CAS-4 for each quarter. The adjudicating authority issued a notice demanding interest on the differential duty paid during the specified period. The appellant argued that they paid the duty under protest, recalculated the CAS value, and there was no delay in payment as it was done immediately after determining the correct value.3. The main issue was the demand of interest on the belated payment of differential duty. The Tribunal found that the appellants paid the differential duty by self-assessment under Section 11A (2B) and did not opt for provisional assessment. The adjudicating authority held that interest was payable under Section 11AB as the differential duty was paid after the duty ought to have been paid and was covered under sub-section (2B) of Section 11A. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in the case of CCE Pune Vs SKF India Ltd., which clarified the liability to pay interest under Section 11AB in such cases. The Tribunal also referred to another Supreme Court judgment in CCE Vs International Auto Ltd., which upheld the demand of interest under Section 11AB.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order demanding interest on the differential duty paid belatedly, following the Supreme Court judgments. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were held liable to pay the interest as per the impugned order.