2016 (6) TMI 918 - HC - Central Excise

Court sets aside Tribunal's order, allows appeal citing precedent. No coercive action until Larger Bench ruling.

The court set aside the Tribunal's order, aligning with the judgments in previous cases, and allowed the appeal. It was clarified that if the Larger ... Demand of interest on additional duty payable after submission of supplementary invoices - Held that:- while accepting the appeal of the revenue in reference to the judgments in the cases of SKF India Ltd. [2009 (7) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT] and International Auto Ltd. [2010 (1) TMI 151 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], the impugned order is set aside. The issue is ordered to be governed by the judgment in the case of International Auto Ltd. [2010 (1) TMI 151 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. We make it clear that if the reference is answered in favour of the assessee in the case of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra), it would apply to the present case also and in that case, right of the assessee and the revenue would be governed by the outcome of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 594 - SUPREME COURT]. We further make it clear that the issue having been referred to the Larger Bench, the revenue would not take coercive action against the assessee till the issue referred to the Larger Bench is decided in the case of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 594 - SUPREME COURT]. - Decided in favor of revenue. Issues Involved:1. Whether the appellant is required to pay interest on differential duty paid later on the strength of supplementary invoices.2. Whether the extended period of limitation is invokable in such cases.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Payment of Interest on Differential Duty:The primary issue in this case was whether the appellant is required to pay interest on differential duty paid later through supplementary invoices. The Tribunal's order was challenged, and the court referred to the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Vs. SKF India Ltd. and Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. International Auto Ltd. Both judgments held that interest is admissible for the entire period on the differential duty. The court noted that the issue was covered by these judgments, which stated that interest is leviable on delayed or deferred payment of duty for any reason, as per Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court cited the relevant observations from these cases, emphasizing that the payment of differential duty falls under Subsection (2B) of Section 11A and attracts interest under Section 11AB. The court concluded that the differential duty paid via supplementary invoices signifies a short payment of duty at the time of removal, thus necessitating interest payment.2. Extended Period of Limitation:The second issue was whether the extended period of limitation is invokable in cases of differential duty payment. The court referred to the same judgments, which clarified that interest is chargeable from the date of removal of goods, irrespective of the reason for delayed payment. The court highlighted that the differential price signifies the value on the date of removal, and the supplementary invoices are directly related to the value of goods on the clearance date. Therefore, interest is chargeable accordingly. The court found no merit in the submissions against this view, reaffirming that the judgments in SKF India Ltd. and International Auto Ltd. hold the field until the issue is reconsidered by the Larger Bench in the case of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd.Conclusion:The court set aside the Tribunal's order, aligning with the judgments in SKF India Ltd. and International Auto Ltd., and allowed the appeal. It was clarified that if the Larger Bench's decision in M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. favors the assessee, it would apply to the present case as well. The court also directed that no coercive action be taken against the assessee until the Larger Bench decides the referred issue. If the decision favors the revenue, the appellant may recover the amount accordingly.