2008 (3) TMI 256 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Rules Against Revenue's Interest Appeal on Excise Duty Payment

The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal for interest on the payment of differential excise duty, ruling in favor of the respondent. The Tribunal found ... Demand of interest on the ground that the respondent had raised supplementary invoices on account of price revision and paid differential excise duty subsequently. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the provision of Sections 11AB and 11A(2B) will not apply in this case and question of paying the interest does not arise as the differential duty has been paid immediately after the receipt of the amended purchase order. 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.