Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was payable on delayed payment of differential duty arising under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, and whether limitation barred recovery of such interest.
Analysis: The delay in payment of duty was admitted. The valuation under Rule 8 required adjustment after the financial year, but that circumstance did not take the case out of the statutory scheme for interest on delayed duty. Recovery of interest was treated as flowing directly from the duty liability, and no separate adjudication was considered necessary for its recovery. The plea of limitation was rejected on the basis that limitation does not apply to recovery of statutory interest. The Tribunal also declined to follow the cited decisions granting relief, and held the reference to the Larger Bench issue to be on different facts involving sale and supplementary invoices.
Conclusion: Interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held payable on the delayed differential duty, and the limitation plea was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the order confirming interest on the delayed duty payment was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Where duty payment is admittedly delayed, statutory interest attaches to the duty liability and is recoverable without being defeated by limitation.