Appellant's Duty Liability Upheld on Supplementary Invoices; Cenvat Credit Use Allowed

The High Court upheld the appellant's position that duty liability arises when supplementary invoices are issued, allowing the use of Cenvat credit. The Court deemed the proviso to Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as ultra vires, supporting the appellant's use of Cenvat credit. However, interest under Section 11AB was imposed on the differential duty amount. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant that no penalty should be imposed as duty on supplementary invoices was promptly paid. The appeal was partially allowed, setting aside the demand for cash payment of duty, requiring interest payment, and dismissing the penalty.

---

---

Issues:
- Utilization of Cenvat credit for payment of differential duty on supplementary invoices
- Validity of proviso to Rule 3 (4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
- Imposition of interest under Section 11AB
- Imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004

Utilization of Cenvat Credit:
The appellant contested that the supplementary invoices were related to the month they were raised, not the original clearance month, as duty became payable only upon price enhancement. Citing a Tribunal decision, they argued that duty liability arises when supplementary invoices are issued, allowing the use of Cenvat credit. The High Court upheld this view, emphasizing that the buyer's liability must be known at the transaction time. The High Court's decision was supported by the Tribunal, leading to setting aside the demand for cash payment of duty and allowing the use of Cenvat credit.

Validity of Proviso to Rule 3 (4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
The appellant relied on a High Court ruling declaring the proviso to Rule 3 (4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as ultra vires. As no contradictory judgments were presented, the appellant's use of Cenvat credit for duty payment was deemed correct, further supporting the appellant's position.

Imposition of Interest under Section 11AB:
Regarding interest under Section 11AB, the appellant argued that as duty related to the date of supplementary invoices, no interest was due. However, the Tribunal ruled that interest needed to be paid on the differential duty amount from the date of clearance to the payment date, aligning with the Supreme Court's decision on retrospective price escalation.

Imposition of Penalty:
The appellant contended that no penalty should be imposed as they had paid duty on the supplementary invoices promptly. The Tribunal agreed, finding no violation of laws or rules warranting a penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Consequently, the penalty was set aside, and the impugned order was modified accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by modifying the impugned order, setting aside the demand for cash payment of duty, requiring payment of interest under Section 11AB, and dismissing the penalty imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

---