Court upholds Tribunal decision on interest payment commencement date under Central Excise Act.

The Court dismissed the appeals challenging the final order passed by the Tribunal regarding the commencement date for payment of interest under Section 11 AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court held that the decision in a previous case was still binding and granted the appellant the liberty to revive the appeals after a pending decision by a Larger Bench. The appeals were disposed of with this observation, directing them to be consigned to record, and closing the pending applications without any order as to costs.

---

---

Issues involved:
Challenge to final order dated 04.03.2010 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding the commencement date for payment of interest under Section 11 AB of the Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Commencement date for payment of interest under Section 11 AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944
The appeals filed challenge the final order passed by the Tribunal, focusing on the date from which the period for payment of interest under Section 11 AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would begin. The appellant had initially paid excise duty on the manufactured goods at the time of removal. Subsequently, the appellant raised supplementary invoices on customers and received additional consideration, on which excise duty was also paid. The Department seeks interest as compensation from the date of the first duty payment on the original price until the duty was paid again upon receiving additional consideration.

Issue 1.1: Precedents and Legal References
The appellant's counsel concedes that the issue is covered against the appellant based on a decision by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Vs. SKF India Limited, 2009. It is noted that the decision in the SKF India Limited case has been referred to a Larger Bench following an order in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur, 2015. However, as of the judgment date, no decision had been rendered by the Larger Bench.

Issue 1.2: Court's Decision
The Court, after considering the submissions from both counsels, acknowledges that the decision in the SKF India Limited case is still binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Despite the reference to a Larger Bench, the Court decides to dismiss the appeals but grants the appellant the liberty to revive them after the decision in the Steel Authority of India Limited case is made, provided it is in favor of the Assessee. The appeals are disposed of with this observation, directing them to be consigned to record, and closing the pending applications without any order as to costs.

---