2014 (9) TMI 335

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssories and clear them on payment of excise duty to buyers based on transaction value worked out on the contracted price. Subsequently, they raise supplementary invoice after negotiation with the buyer and they secure higher price in respect of the goods cleared earlier by the assessee. Consequent to the supplementary invoice, for the differential value, excise duty is payable, and the appellant, it appears, did pay the differential duty on the amounts received from the buyer. On 8.12.05, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Division  4, demanded interest under Section 11A (2B) read with Section 11 AB of the Central Excise Act on the differential duty paid from the date of original clearance to the customers in the said demand or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) ELT 385 (SC)). 3. Heard Mr.C.Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.P.Mahadevan, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant tried to convince this Court that the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in SKF's case (supra)is a case relating to suppression of fact and, therefore, submitted that the claim is time barred and the said facts are not applicable to the present case on hand. However, we find that this plea of the learned counsel for the appellant is not substantiated by fact as in SKF's case (supra), we find that the facts are very distinct and clear and they are identical to the facts of the present case, the material portion of which....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tral Excise, Pune I, who by his order dated August 30, 2006 allowed the appeal and set-aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The Revenue then brought the matter before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal but its appeal was dismissed by order dated January 3, 2008. The Tribunal, following certain decisions of the Bombay High Court held that no interest was chargeable where there was no time-gap between the payment of the differential duty and issuance of supplementary invoices to the customers on the basis of upward revision of prices in respect of the goods sold earlier." 5. It could be seen that in SKF's case (supra), the Supreme Court, relying upon the decision in Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills case ....