TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 600
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt entered into a contract with TNEB in which contract there is a clause for price variation formula for the supplies made. The first respondent cleared the conductors and paid the duty on the provisional value certified in the purchase orders placed by TNEB under the said contract. However, supplementary invoices were raised by the first respondent and differential duty for a sum of Rs. 26,63,848/= was paid. However, appropriate interest was not paid by the assessee, though it is liable to pay the same as per Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued on the first respondent by the appellant demanding interest for belated payment of differential duty and also invoking the penalty clause. After due adjudication, the adjudicating authority held that supplementary invoices have been raised and on the basis of the same, payments were made, wherein obligation to pay duty arose and, accordingly, the adjudicating authority passed the order demanding interest of Rs. 1,20,662/= under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act for belated payment of duty and imposed an equal amount of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble to be recovered from the assessee under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944." 3. In respect of the plea of time bar, the said plea was rejected by the adjudicating authority by recording the following reason :- "16. With reference to the assessee's contention that the demand of interest is time barred since issued beyond a reasonable period of one year, I observe that no time limit has been specified in the Act/Rule to demand interest. The Hon' Tribunal also, in the case og Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. - Vs - CCE, Vadodara, had held that no time limit prescribed for demand of interest. Therefore, the assessee's contention fails before law since the demand of interest beyond the period of one year is sustainable." 4. Aggrieved against the said adjudication order, the respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals), vide order dated 15.01.2009, confirmed the order of the adjudicating authority. 5. Against the said order, the first respondent/assessee preferred appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on considering the facts of the case, relying on the decision in the case of CCE, Vadodara - Vs - Chlorite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under the relevant provisions of Law, no appeal shall henceforth be filed in the Tribunal as the duty involved is within the monetary limit of Rs. 1 Lakh. Similarly, if the duty involved in a case is Rs. 2 Lakhs with equal mandatory penalty and any other penalty imposed under the Law in force at the relevant time, no appeal shall be filed before the High Court." 8. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that in view of the above instruction, for preferring an appeal, monetary limit, insofar as duty component is concerned, is fixed and only if the monetary limit exceeds Rs. 2 Lakhs, appeal can be filed. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that the case on hand is not a case falling under Section 11A, as is evident from the show cause notice and, therefore, no interest could be demanded invoking the decision of the Supreme Court in SKF India case (supra). 9. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee and perused the materials available on record and also the judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 10. E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty and any other penalty imposed under the law in force at the relevant time, no appeal shall be filed before the High Court. In the present case, it is admitted by either side that the differential duty component is more than Rs. 26 Lakhs, which has been paid by the respondent/assessee, though belatedly, on which interest is sought to be levied by the appellant/Revenue. In the present appeal, the imposition is only interest on delayed payment of duty component. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee could be accepted, as there is no duty involved in this case and it pertains only to interest on delayed payment of differential duty. Therefore, even at the threshold, the said objection is negatived. 13. Insofar as the other contentions are concerned, it is admitted by the parties that the decision in Chloritech Industries case (supra - 2009 (235) ELT 17), which has been relied on by the Tribunal to hold in favour of the assessee, has been subsequently reversed by the Gujarat High Court in Chloritech Industries case (supra - 2014 (306) ELT 447) and the appeal was allowed in favour of the Revenue. In the above backgrou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Official Gazette, from the first date of the month succeeding the month in which the duty ought to have been paid under this Act, from the date of such erroneous refund, as the case may be, but for the provisions contained in subsection (2), or sub-section (2B), of Section 11A till the date of payment of such duty : Provided that in such cases where the duty become payable consequent to issue of an order, instruction, or direction by the Board under Section 37B, and such amount of duty payable is voluntarily paid in full without reserving any right to appeal against such payment at any subsequent stage, within forty-five days from the date of issue of such order, instruction or direction as the case may be, no interest shall be payable and in other cases the interest shall be payable on the whole of the amount, including the amount already paid. (2) The provision of sub-section (1) shall not apply to cases where the duty had become payable or ought to have been paid before the date on which the Finance Bill, 2001 receives the assent of the President. Explanation 1. - Where the duty determined to be payable is reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellate Tribunal ....