M/S. Man Structurals Pvt. Ltd vs Cce-Jaipur-I
- CitationAppeal No. E/1948/2008-EX [DB]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a manufacturer pays differential duty only later, on the issuance of supplementary invoices, interest is payable on that differential duty for the intervening period, following the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune v. SKF India Ltd. Where the assessee has not paid the duty or interest with an intent to evade payment, and no fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or contravention of the Act or Rules with intent to evade duty is alleged against it, and no mens rea is alleged, the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act is not invokable. Demands for interest falling within the normal period of limitation, counted back from the date the show cause notice was received, are sustainable, while demands beyond that period fall outside the permissible period.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 17/2008 CE dated 15.05.2008 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals) Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur-i]
1. Whether Press Reporter 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. Man Structurals Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE-Jaipur-I Respondent
Appearance: Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate for the appellant
Shri Ranjan Khanna, DR for the respondent.
Coram: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri B.Ravichandran, Member (Technical)
Final Order No. 52251/2015
Per: Ashok Jindal
The issues involved in the matter are as under:
(i) Whether the appellant is required to pay interest on differential duty which was paid later on the strength of supplementary invoices or not.
(ii) In such cases whether the extended period of limitation is invokable or not.
2. Heard the parties.
3. With regard to the issue no. 1 whether for the impugned period the appellant is required to pay interest on differential duty which was paid on the issuance of supplementary invoices, the said issue has been settled against the appellant in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Vs. SKF India LTD. reported in 2009 (239) ELT 385 SC wherein it has been held that in intervening period interest is payable by the assessee. Therefore, issue is no more res-integra, Accordingly, we held that the appellant is required to pay interest on differential duty paid at the time of issuance of supplementary invoices.
4. With regard to the issue no. 2, whether extending period of limitation can be invoked or not in such a circumstances, or not, we find that it cannot be alleged against the appellant that they have not paid interest by way of fraud, collusion, suppression of facts or contravention of the provision of Central Excise Act/Rules with an intend to evade the payment of duty. In these circumstances relying on the decision of the Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case Neel Metal Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Excise, Delhi-III reported in 2014 (306) ELT 367 (P&H) we hold that the extended period of limitation is not invokable in such a circumstances in the absence of mensrea alleged against the appellant. Therefore, we hold that extended period of limitation is no invokable.
5. Now we have seen the period of demand in the impugned case wherein period involved is from May, 2003 to March, 2007 whereas show cause notice has been issued on 23/01/2008 which was received by the appellant on 25/01/2008. Therefore, demands of interest for the period within limitation are upheld. With these terms, appeal is disposed off.
(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)
(B. Ravichandran)
Member (Technical)
Ritu
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