TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Rules Against Revenue's Interest Appeal on Excise Duty Payment</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PUNE-I Versus ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PUNE-I Versus ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. - 2008 (230) E.L.T. 298 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues involved:Demand of interest on differential excise duty payment due to price revision.Analysis:The issue in this case revolves around the demand of interest on the payment of differential excise duty following a price revision by the respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled that the provisions of Sections 11AB and 11A(2B) do not apply, as the duty was paid immediately after receiving the amended purchase order. The Revenue argued that interest should be paid as per Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, since the differential duty was paid upon issuing supplementary invoices. The Revenue contended that the respondent should have sought provisional assessment under Rule 7(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, to avoid interest payment. They cited a Tribunal decision in the case of Insulators & Electrical Co. v. CCE, Bhopal to support their argument.The respondent, represented by their counsel, countered that Rule 7(4) did not apply in this instance, as they promptly paid the differential duty upon receiving the amended purchase order. They referred to a previous Tribunal order in their favor and a High Court decision in the case of CCE, Aurangabad v. Rucha Engineering Pvt. Ltd. to support their position.Upon reviewing the arguments, the Tribunal noted that the duty was indeed paid immediately upon receipt of the amended purchase order. The Tribunal found no evidence presented by the Revenue to suggest otherwise. Additionally, the respondent had promptly raised supplementary invoices for the enhanced value, settling the duty liability without delay. The Tribunal concluded that the case aligned with the precedent set by the High Court decision in the case of Rucha Engineering Pvt. Ltd.In light of the above analysis and following the precedent set by the High Court decision, the Tribunal rejected the appeals filed by the Revenue and disposed of the Cross-objection accordingly.
TaxTMI 