TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (1) TMI 466
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2) Whether under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, the respondents are liable to pay interest on differential duty paid by them under supplementary invoices issued subsequent to clearance of the goods. 3) (In some cases) whether the demands for the above interest on differential duty is time barred. 2. The respondents had paid duty on the goods cleared by them during the respective periods, on the basis of the price originally agreed to between them and buyers. After the clearance of the goods, the price escalation clause of the agreement was invoked by the respondents and after negotiations between them and the buyers, the price was enhanced. On the basis of the enhanced price, differential duty was paid by the respondents, no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it is submitted by the learned Addl. Commissioner (A.R.) that the above objection is in the nature of preliminary objection but no such objection was raised at any earlier stage of these proceedings. It is further submitted that, National Litigation Policy cannot be implemented with retrospective effect. In this connection, it is pointed out that the Appeal No. E/930/2009 was filed long before notification of the above policy. Half of the other appeals were filed on 30/5/2011 and the rest on 8/6/2011. 4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. Any preliminary objection has got to be raised on the earliest available occasion. The objection presently raised by the learned counsel was never raised before. Though the responde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be paid on such differential duty for the period from the date of clearance of the goods to the date of payment of differential duty. This view was reaffirmed by the apex court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. International Auto Ltd. [2010(250)E.L.T.3(SC)]. The reliance placed by the appellant on these judgments of the apex court has to be accepted. The learned counsel for the respondent has endeavoured to distinguish the facts of the cases from those of the case of M/s SKF India Ltd. I have carefully examined the facts of all cases and have found that the facts of the cases considered by the Hon ble Supreme Court are essentially on par with the facts of the instant cases. Hence the view taken by the apex court is square....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mand of interest on duty. This view was accepted by the Supreme Court while dismissing the civil appeals filed by the department against the Tribunal s order. The same view was followed by the High Court in the case of Kwality Ice cream Company (supra). 8. Admittedly, in the cases covered by Appeals E/1512, 1517 & 1519/2011, the demand of interest on additional duty is within the normal period of limitation in terms of the above view taken by the apex court in TVS Whirlpool case. These three appeals are therefore allowed. 9. It has been claimed by the learned counsel for the respondents that, in most of the remaining cases, the demand of interest on differential duty is wholly time barred. These cases are said to be E/93....