TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 266
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2004 to 13.9.2004 on payment of duty under the Central Excise Invoices, without following the CAS4 procedure. Subsequently, the appellant revised the assessable value and paid the differential duty on 21.10.2004. During the Central Excise audit in December 2004, it was pointed out that the revised value for payment of the differential duty was not correct and it was not based on CAS4 procedure On 8.5.2005, the appellant received the CAS4 certificate and paid the differential duty of Rs. 47,10,554/- on 24.1.2006. A show cause notice dtd 20th Sept. 2007 was issued proposing demand of duty of Rs. 47,10,554/- and to appropriate the said amount, as they have already deposited. There is a demand interest of Rs. 7,75,112.00 under Section 11AB of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tilizers Co Ltd - 2012(285)ELT.336 (Guj) b) CCE&C vs Saurashtra Cement Ltd - 2010(260)ELT.71 (Guj) Which is Upheld by the Honble Supreme Court as reported in 2013(292) ELT.A98 (SC). 3. On the other hand, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue, reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that in the present case, the appellant had not paid the duty voluntarily. It is submitted that the Department audit party detected the non-payment of Central Excise duty; therefore, the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court would not be applicable. He further submits that the appellant paid the duty therefore they are liable to pay interest which is automatic. 4. After hearing the Learned Authorised Repr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, I rely on the decision of the Honble Tribunal in the case of Kores India Ltd vs CCE., Hyderabad 2004(178)ELT.901 (Tri. Bang.) wherein it was held as under: 4.We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that the appellants were clearing Barium Carbonate to their own Granulation Unit on payment of duty by taking average value of Barium Carbonate of the various grades. The duty paid by them on the Barium Carbonate is being taken as credit in their Granulation Unit. Therefore there is Revenue neutrality in this case despite the fact that the appellants have not determined the correct value of the each grade of the Barium Carbonate. In this circumstance, where there is Revenue neutrality, then in view ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h intent to evade duty is not established". 5. Revenue had not filed cross appeal against the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). In fact, the demand of duty for the extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A(i) of the Act 1944 would not survive. But, the appellant already paid the duty voluntarily. The demand of interest under Section 11AB of the said Act is payable, if there is any short levied/short payment of duty, who is liable to pay duty as determined by Central Excise Officers under Section 11A(2) or paid under Section 11(2B) of the said Act. So, the payment of interest under Section 11AB (as it stood during the relevant period) linked with Sub Section (2) or (2B) of Section 11A of the Act. In the present case, ....