TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Court rejects revenue's appeal on interest demand under Sec. 11AB of Excise Act, citing timely duty payment.</h1> The appeal filed by the revenue against the demand of interest from the respondents under Sec. 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was rejected by the ... Price escalation – demand of interest from the date of original clearance of goods – it is clear that there is no time gap between issuance of supplementary invoice and price escalation - held that, since duty was paid immediately after escalation of price without any delay, demand of interest is not justified – revenue’s appeal rejected Issues:Demand of interest under Sec. 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944.Analysis:The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order-in-appeal regarding the demand of interest from the respondents under Sec. 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The issue revolved around the payment of differential duty by the respondent due to a revision of prices after the original clearance of steel forgings and motor vehicle parts. The revenue contended that interest was payable as the original clearance should have been done on the revised price. However, it was noted that there was no time gap between the issuance of supplementary invoices and the revision of prices. This issue had already been settled in favor of the respondent in a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. The judgment highlighted that if there was a time gap between learning about the revised rates and paying the duty, interest would be applicable. However, in this case, the duty was voluntarily paid upon learning about the revised rates, with no delay in payment. It was clarified that this was not a case of non-payment or short-payment of excise duty. The judgment concurred with the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the CESTAT, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the IHCS.Therefore, considering that the issue had already been settled by a previous judgment and in light of the absence of any time gap between the revision of prices and the payment of duty, the appeal filed by the revenue was rejected. The judgment emphasized that the voluntary payment of the duty upon learning about the revised rates did not warrant the imposition of interest under Sec. 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
