TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Supreme Court: Interest payable under Central Excise Act for delayed duty payment.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Versus INTERNATIONAL AUTO LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Versus INTERNATIONAL AUTO LTD. - 2010 (250) E.L.T. 3 (SC) , [2010] 24 STT 586 (SC), 2010 (1) SCR 211, 2010 (2) SCC 672, ... Issues:Recovery of interest on differential duty under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Analysis:The Department sought to recover interest on differential duty paid by the assessee, which was disputed. The assessee supplied auto parts to manufacturers of motor vehicles like Tata Motors, Mahindra and Mahindra, and Piaggio Vehicles Private Limited, with prices determined based on various factors. The Department issued a show-cause notice for interest on the price difference between the date of removal and the enhanced price at sale. The assessee argued that interest was not leviable under Section 11AB as prices in purchase orders were final, with no scope for retrospective price changes. The assessee relied on a previous judgment but the Supreme Court found no merit in the argument, citing the SKF India Limited case.The Supreme Court referenced the SKF India Limited case, explaining the provisions of Section 11A for non-levy or short-levy of duty. The Court highlighted that interest under Section 11AB is leviable on delayed payment of duty for any reason, unlike penalties for intentional defaults. The Court held that the payment of differential duty by the assessee fell under sub-section (2B) of Section 11A, attracting interest under Section 11AB. The Court disagreed with a High Court decision and emphasized that the situation constituted short payment of duty, leading to interest liability under Section 11AB.The Court discussed the changes in Section 11A and 11AB due to amendments in 2001 and 2003, emphasizing the accrual of price differential as a key factor. The judgment differentiated this case from a previous one concerning a claim for refund, stating that the current scenario involved the imposition of interest to compensate for revenue loss. The Court concluded that the judgment in the SKF India Limited case was applicable to the present case, allowing the civil appeal with no costs incurred.
TaxTMI 