2019 (7) TMI 1170

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the appellant. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is identical, therefore both the appeals are taken together for discussion and disposal. The details of the appeals are as under: Sl. No. Appeal No. Order-in-Appeal No. Interest Amount (Rs.) 1 E/20485/2018-SM BEL-EXCUS-000-APP-MSC-103-2017-18 dated 12/01/2018 55,403/- 2 E/20494/2018-SM BEL-EXCUS-000-APP-MSC-104-2017-18 dated 12/01/2018 28,092/- For the sake of convenience, the facts of Appeal No. E/20485/2018 is taken. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods i.e. Raw castings and Central Hosing falling under Chapter 73 and 87 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the appellants, rejected the appeals of the appellant. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the only issue involved in the present case is demand of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act 1944 on the differential duty paid through supplementary invoices due to subsequent increase in price of goods by virtue of price escalation clause. He further submitted that there were contradictory decisions on this issue and the Hon'ble Apex Court referred the issue to the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur - 2015 (326) E.L.T. 450 (SC) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its orde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Ltd. - 2010 (261) ELT 865 3.2. He further submitted that in the present case there is no allegation of suppression/misstatement in respect of supplementary invoices and therefore the longer period of limitation is not invokable. He also relied upon the Division Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of Sharavathy Conductors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2017 (1) TMI 537 - CESTAT Bang. 4. On the other hand the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that demand of interest is automatic and there is no need to issue the show-cause notice. He further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court doubted the correctness of SKF India Ltd. which held the field till 2015 and then referred it to the Larger Bench and the Larger Bench has uphel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....case of SKH Auto Components Ltd. When we consider the definition of relevant date in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, we find that the amendment has been carried out w.e.f. 14.05.2015 to the effect that relevant date, in the case where only interest is to be recovered, will be the date of payment of duty to which such interest relates. However the amendment is prospective w.e.f. 14.05.2015 and cannot be applied to the prior period. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner Vs. T.V.S. Whirlpool Ltd. 2000 (119) E.L.T. A177 (S.C) has held as follows: "It is only reasonable that the period of limitation that applies to a claim for the principal amount should also apply to the claim for interest thereon." ....