TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 469
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....004 received duty paid petroleum products from Bijwasan terminal of IOC and the goods had been cleared on payment of duty by Bijwasan terminal. According to the appellant, since by the time the petroleum products were sold from Rewari terminal, the Government had revised the prices upward, as a result of which the amount recovered from the customers by the Rewari Terminal towards excise duty was more than the excise duty originally paid in respect of the same goods by Bijwasan terminal, the appellant (IOC Rewari) paid the extra amount collected from the customers as duty, to the department, as per the provisions of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The extra amount recovered from the customers for the period April 2001 to Septemb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 11AB. 2. Against the above order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed. 3. Heard both the sides. 4. Ms. Tuhina, Advocate, the ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the observations of the Additional Commissioner in the order-in-original and of the Commissioner (Appeals) in order-in-appeal that the differential duty has been paid under supplementary invoices on account of retrospective price revision and that in view of this the interest under Section 11AB on the differential duty would be payable in accordance with the ratio of the Apex Court judgment in the case of SKF India (supra), are factually incorrect; that the appellant (IOC Rewari) received duty paid petroleum products from the IOC (Bijwasan);....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner (Appeals) is not applicable at all, as there were no supplementary invoices issued either by the IOC (Rewari) or IOC (Bijwasan) and observation to this effect is factually incorrect and that in view of the above submissions the, order upholding the demand is not sustainable. 5. Ms. Shweta Bector, ld. DR, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in it. She pleaded that as regards the question of limitation for recovery of interest, a coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in recent judgment in the case of Hindustan Insecticides (Final Order No. A/915-941/2012-EX dated 20.07.2012) has held that the interest on duty being under automatic operation of law, there is no limitation period for its rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd price revision from retrospective effect and on this basis both the order-in-original and the first appellate authority have confirmed the interest demand under Section 11AB applying the Apex Court's judgment in the case of SKF India (supra). If the appellant i.e. IOC (Rewari) during the period in dispute had received duty paid petroleum products from IOC (Bijwasan) the "differential duty" paid was certainly amount realised by the appellant (IOC Rewari) from their customers towards duty which was in excess of the duty originally paid by the IOC (Bijwasan), and the payment of this differential amount have to be treated under Section 11D and the question of charging of interest for the period of delay in paying the same to Government would....