TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 918
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le for the entire period. Accordingly, a prayer is made to set aside the order of the Tribunal as it has relied on the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Neel Metal Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi - III reported in 2014 (306) ELT 367 (P&H). The dispute about addition of interest was decided in favour of the revenue subject to limitation of one year for the period of demand whereas the Apex Court has decided the issue otherwise. A prayer is accordingly to cover the present case by the judgments of Apex Court in the cases of SKF India Ltd. and International Auto Ltd. (supra). Learned counsel appearing for the assessee has contested the case. It is submitted that two judgments of Apex Court referred by the revenue has been taken into consideration by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur in Civil Appeal No.2150/2012 decided on 07th December, 2015 along with connected appeals. Doubting the correctness of the judgment in two cases, the matter has been referred to Larger Bench. In view of the aforesaid, the issue is yet to be determined by the Apex Court. Accordingly, a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of Rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty"; that is to say, it is intentional, deliberate and/or by deceitful means. Naturally, the cases falling in the two groups lead to different consequences and are dealt with differently. Section 11A, however allow the assessees in default in both kinds of cases to make amends, subject of course to certain terms and conditions. The cases where the non-payment or short payment etc. of duty is by reason of fraud collusion etc. are dealt with under Sub-section (1A) of Section 11A and the cases where the non-payment or short payment of duty is not intentional under Sub-section (2B). 10. Sub-section (2B) of Section 11A provides that the assessee in default may, before the notice issued under Sub-section (1) is served on him, make payment of the unpaid duty on the basis of his own ascertainment or as ascertained by a Central Excise Officer and inform the Central Excise Officer in writing about the payment made by him and in that event he would not be given the demand notice under Subsection (1). But Explanation 2 to the Sub-section makes it expressly clear that such payment would not be exempt from interest chargeable under S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of Section 11A(2) and 11A (2B) were not applicable as the situation occurred in the instant case was quite different, Section 11AB(1) was not at all applicable, and therefore, the Assessee was not required to pay interest. 13. It further held that a case of this nature would not fall in the category where duty of excise was not paid or short-paid. 14. We are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the High Court. It is to be noted that the assessee was able to demand from its customers the balance of the higher prices by virtue of retrospective revision of the prices. It, therefore, follows that at the time of sale the goods carried a higher value and those were cleared on short payment of duty. The differential duty was paid only later when the assessee issued supplementary invoices to its customers demanding the balance amounts. Seen thus it was clearly a case of short payment of duty though indeed completely unintended and without any element of deceit etc. The payment of differential duty thus clearly came under Subsection (2B) of Section 11A and attracted levy of interest under Section 11AB of the Act. 8. Section 11A of the Act deals with recovery of duty not levied or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the price list approved on 14th May, 1983. In that case, assessee had made a claim for refund of excise duty on the differential between the price on the date of removal and the reduced price at which tyres were sold. The price was approved by the Government. In that case, the assessee submitted that its price list was approved by the Government on 14th May, 1983, but subsequent thereto, on account of consumer resistance, the Government of India directed the assessee to roll back the prices to pre-14th May, 1983 level and on that account, price differential arose on the basis of which the assessee claimed refund of excise duty which stood rejected by this Court on the ground that once the assessee had cleared the goods on classification, the assessee became liable to payment of duty on the date of removal and subsequent reduction in the prices for whatever reason cannot be made a matter of concern to the Department insofar as the liability to pay excise duty was concerned. In the present case, we are concerned with the imposition of interest which, as stated above, is charged to compensate the Department for loss of revenue. Be that as it may, as stated above, the Scheme of Sect....