M/S Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd vs Cce, Bhopal
- CitationExcise Appeal No. 3596 of 2006
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the duty has been paid by the assessee before the finalisation of a provisional assessment, no interest is payable on the differential duty for the intervening period; this follows the Bombay High Court's construction of Rule 7(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which the Tribunal treats as settled and binding on the question, so that the issue is no longer res integra.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of the Order-in-Original No. 07/COMMR/CEX/2006 dated 21/09/2006 passed by The Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Bhopal.]
For Approval and signature :
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of :
the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for
publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair :
copy of the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :
Department Authorities?
M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Appellant
Versus
CCE, Bhopal Respondent
Appearance
Shri Z.U. Alvi, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Pramod Kumar, Authorized Representative (Jt. CDR) for the Respondent.
CORAM: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)
Final Order No. 52237/2015 Dated : 13/07/2015
Per. Ashok Jindal :-
The short issue involved in the matter is that whether the appellant is required to pay interest on the differential duty paid prior to finalization of provisional assessment or not.
2. Heard the parties. As the issue has been settled by the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE, Nagpur vs. Ispat Industries Ltd. reported in 2010 (259) E.L.T. 662 (Bom.), where the Honble High Court has held that no interest is payable if duty has been paid by the assessee before finalization of provisional assessment as Rule 7 (4) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, therefore, we hold that issue is no more res-integra consequently appellant is not required to pay interest during the intervened period. In the consequence, appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Ashok Jindal)
Member (Judicial)
(B. Ravichandran)
Member (Technical)
PK
??
??
??
??
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free