TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 252
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are being taken up together for discussion and disposal. The details of the appeals are as under: Sl. No. Appeal No. Order-in-Appeal No. Period involved Amount (Rs.) 1 E/20577/2018 BW-EXCUS-000-APP-114-17-18 dated 01/02/2018 May 2003 to September 2006 Rs. 5,17,948/- 2 E/20578/2018 BW-EXCUS-000-APP-114-17-18 dated 01/02/2018 February 2008 to March 2009 Rs. 18,02,515/- 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are manufacturers of excisable goods falling under Chapter 87 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff act, 1985. They clear the goods manufactured on certain prices on payment of duty leviable at the existing rate of duty on the invoice value and whenever there is a revision of prices....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Supreme Court, the learned counsel fairly conceded that the appellant has no case on merits but he has a good case on limitation. He further submitted that in both the appeals, the demand of interest is barred by limitation. He further submitted that it is settled law that the time limit prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act is also applicable for recovery of interest. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: a. CC, Madras Vs. TVS Whirlpool Ltd. - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 144 (Tribunal) further affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court - 2000 (119) E.L.T. A177 (S.C) b. Jai Bharat Maruti Ltd. V. CCE, Delhi - 2014 (307) E.L.T. 282 (P&H) c. Kwality Ice Cream Company Vs. Union of India - 2012 (281) E.L.T. 507 (Del.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SKF India Ltd. - 2009 (239) E.L.T. 385 (S.C) and subsequently the issue has been referred and settled against the appellant by the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court. Therefore, longer period of limitation is not invokable in the present case. For this he relied upon the following decisions: a. Associated Strips Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi - 2014 (314) E.L.T. 647 (Tri.-Del.) b. Marsha Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2009 (248) E.L.T. 687 (Tri.-Ahmd.) 4. On the other hand the learned AR defended the impugned order. He further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court doubted the correctness of the decision in the case of SKF India Ltd. only in the year 2015 when it referred the matter to the Larger Bench in the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not invokable in the present case because the short payment is not due to fraud, collusion, suppression etc with intent to evade duty and in view of the decision in the case of CCE Vs. VAE VKN Industries cited supra and Hindustan Insecticides Ltd., I hold that extended period of limitation is not invokable in the present case. Further I find that the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sharavathy Conductors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2017 (1) TMI 537 - CESTAT Bang. considered the issue of limitation with regard to demand of interest on supplementary invoices. The Tribunal in para 6.2 and 7 has held as under: "6.2. Now we turn to the specific argument of the appellant saying that the show-cause notice is hit by time-bar inasmuch as i....