2018 (1) TMI 638

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rovisionally declared value. On final determination of cost of production, M/s IMIL paid differential duty along with interest amounting to Rs. 3,03,81,370/-. The interest was paid Under protest . The order of final assessment was passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 28.12.2006. The Appellant filed Refund claim on 20.04.2007 for interest paid by them. The said claim was filed on the ground that the differential duty was paid by them prior to the date of final assessment order whereas in terms of Rule 7(4) of CER, 2002 interest is not payable in case where differential duty is paid within one month of the date of order. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim on the ground that interest was correctly payable in terms of Rule ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s : (i) Northern Minerals Ltd. 2007 (216) ELT 638 (T) (ii) Garden Silk Mills Ltd. 1992 (68) ELT 638 (T) (iii) CM Envirosystems Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (238) ELT 693 (T) (iv) Tribunal Final Order No. A/ 87152/17/SMB dated 05.04.2017 in appellants own case. She also submits that Rule 7(4) and Section 11AB speaks about payment of interest on amount which is determined as payable. The duty can be said to be not levied or not paid or short levied or short paid, only when the amount of duty as payable is determined through the process of assessment and only after such a statutory order is passed. In the present case final amount of duty got determined by finalizing the assessment on 28.12.2006. Therefore there is no requirement to pay interest. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Ltd. 2016 (338) 36 (Raj.) and J.C.T Ltd. 2009 (248) ELT 884 (TRI) to claim that interest is payable on delayed payment of duty and there is no provisions under Section 11B to refund interest. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. From the facts we find that appellants have paid interest in respect of duty paid before the finalization of the assessment. In case duty paid before the finalisation of the assessment , interest is not chargeable as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CEAT Ltd. 2015 (317) ELT 192 and the same was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2016 (334) ELT A161 (SC) 2016 (342) ELT A 181 (SC). Therefore the amount of interest paid by the appellant is refundable to them. A....