KEC INTERNATIONAL LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard at length learned Advocate for the appellants and learned DR for the respondent. The short point which is sought to be raised in the matter relates to bar of limitation for recovery of interest amount payable in terms of Sub -section (2B) of Section 11A and 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 in relation to the differential amount of duty paid consequent to the issuance of supplementary invoices during the period from Sept. 05 to July' 06.

(2.) Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants while fairly conceding that in terms of the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Pune v. SKF India Ltd. reported in : 2009 (239) ELT. 385 (SC) that differential duty payable at the time of issuance of supplementary invoice would be with effect from the date of clearance of the goods till the payment of duty with the interest, contends that the records disclose that the Department was fully aware of such liability of the appellants in relation to the interest payable on differential duty arising out of the supplementary invoices much prior to the issuance of the show cause notice and therefore, could not have invoked the extended period of limitation. She further submitted that though the provisions of law comprised under Section 11AB do not specifically provide any period of limitation for recovery of interest, considering the basic principle of law that the period of limitation which applies to the claim in relation to the principal amount would obviously apply to the claim in relation to the interest on such principal amount and the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of Collector of Customs, Madras v. T.V.S. Whirlpool Ltd. reported in : 1996 (86) ELT. 144, the respondents could not have issued a show cause notice on 22.5.08 in relation to the period prior to one year from the date of the issuance of show cause notice. In the case in hand, the relevant period relates to the period prior to one year from the date of issuance of show cause notice and, hence, the demand is barred by limitation.

(3.) The point of limitation is never a pure question of law. It is always a mixed question of law and facts. In order to decide as to whether a particular action is barred by law of limitation, it is always necessary to consider the facts of the case. Unless from the facts it is established that the action taken is beyond the period prescribed for taking such action, the question of limitation cannot be decided and therefore, it is always a mixed question of law and facts. Besides, the Apex Court in Warner Hindustan Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in : 1999 (113) ELT. 24 (SC) had clearly held that "it is impossible for the Tribunal to consider a case that is laid for the first time in appeal because the stage for setting out the factual matrix is before the authorities below".