BI METAL BEARINGS LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides. Both sides confirm that in these three appeals, the only issue that is required to be considered is whether for the impugned clearances, the appellants are required to pay interest in respect of duty paid after a delay after finalization of the provisional assessment. We find that this issue was referred to a larger Bench and we have now the benefit of the larger Bench decision vide Misc. Order No. 405/2008 dated 30.9.2008 holding that interest is payable in such cases on delayed payment of duty after finalization of the provisional assessment.

(2.) AT this stage, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants raises another issue that since the impugned clearances were made by the appellants to their own factories, interest should not be charged on the plea of revenue neutrality. He, however, fairly states that this issue was not raised by the appellants before the lower authority or in the grounds of appeal filed before the Tribunal The learned SDR appearing for the Department, however, states that in para 12 of the larger Bench decision dated 30.9.2008 there is a reference to plea of revenue neutrality and to the decision of Bayer ABS Limited v. CCE, Vadodara, 2008 (226) ELT 386. He further states while resolving the issue referred to the larger Bench, the said Bench has consciously and after taking into consideration all aspects of the case including the issue of revenue neutrality has opined that interest is chargeable in the instant case. The learned SDR also cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Pune v. S.K.F. India Ltd. : 2009 (239) ELT 385 (SC) the ratio of which clearly indicates that wherever duty is not paid and held back for whatever reason, the interest is payable.

(3.) ALL the above appeals are accordingly dismissed.