2013 (10) TMI 355

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gh Court, has reversed the common order passed by the Tribunal against the appellant and another company. Counsel for the respondent states that he has no objection, if the appeal is taken on Board and is decided along with the application. Ordered accordingly. Central Excise Appeal No.49 of 2012 The appeal challenging order dated 20.07.2012 (Annexure A-1), passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal,Principal Bench, New Delhi (CESTAT), was admitted for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law:- "(i) Whether the relevant date of payment of the duty consequent to revision of price is the date when the goods are removed from the factory premises or the date when differential duty is paid? (ii) That ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n judgment of the High Court of Delhi. We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and find no reason to differ from the opinion recorded by the Delhi High Court in Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. v. Commissioner Central Excise, LTU (supra). The CESTAT, vide a common order, dismissed appeals filed by the appellant and M/s Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. The order passed by CESTAT has been reversed by the Delhi High Court, by relying upon judgments in Kwality Ice Cream Company and Another v. Union of India and others, (2012) 281 ELT, 507 and Commissioner v. TVS Whirlpool Limited, 2000(119) ELT A177 (SC) and holding that as the period of limitation that applies to recovery of the principal amount shall also apply to the claim f....