2008 (2) TMI 121

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d off by a common order. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the appellant obtained permission from the department for provisional assessment in respect of clearances affected by them to their sister units.  The said provisional assessments were finalized by the adjudicating authority by orders-in-original dt. 28.3.2007 and 30.3.2007. Before the order of finalization, the appellant had already paid differential duty and hence adjudicating authority only adjusted amount of the duty already paid against the duty finalized.  The adjudicating authority however, did not order for the recovery of interest as provided under Rule 7(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.  Aggrieved by such order, department filed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent.  If the payment was made after finalization of the assessment say on 17.7.05 then the interest will be calculated for the period 1.10.04 to 17.7.05.  If the short payment was made before finalization of the assessment say on 15.1.05 then the interest will be calculated for the period 1.10.04 to 15.1.05.  In other words the date of order of the finalization of provisional assessment is not relevant.  This is so because the expression used in the aforesaid Rule 7(4) is "month for which" such amount is determined and not "month in which" such amount is determined.  Had the expression been "month in which" such amount is determined then the date of the order of finalization would have been relevant.  &nbs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ns of the Tribunal:- (i) Ispat Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur [2007 (209) E.LT. 280 (Tri.-Mumbai)] (ii) MSEB Pole Factory vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. (Appeals), Aurangabad [2005 (187) E.L.T. 209 (Tri.-Mumbai)] (iii) M/s. J. K. Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mysore[2006-TIOL-1341-CESTAT-Bang] 3. The Ld. JDR on the other hand emphasised that Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly pointed out the distinction and the non-consideration of the provisions in the orders of the Tribunal. It is the submission that the provisions of Rule 7(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 clearly indicate that the interest is chargeable "succeeding the month for which the such amount is determined". He ....