SL LUMAX LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee is the appellant herein and the appeal is filed against the Final Order No. 40500 dated 31.10.2013, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, made in Appeal No. E/624/06. The assessee in this case is involved in the manufacture of automobile parts such as light fittings and accessories and clear them on payment of excise duty to buyers based on transaction value worked out on the contracted price. Subsequently, they raise supplementary invoice after negotiation with the buyer and they secure higher price in respect of the goods cleared earlier by the assessee. Consequent to the supplementary invoice, for the differential value, excise duty is payable, and the appellant, it appears, did pay the differential duty on the amounts received from the buyer. On 8.12.05, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Division - 4, demanded interest under Section 11A(2B) read with Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act on the differential duty paid from the date of original clearance to the customers in the said demand order. Aggrieved over the said assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), who decided the appeals by Order -in -Appeal No. 11/2006(M -IV) dated 31.4.06 and set aside the demand order of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise. In the meanwhile, the assessee had deposited the interest amount of Rs. 18,15,305 vide challan No. 50011 dated 23.11.11. The Department, however, preferred an appeal to the Tribunal and the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by a short order, which reads as follows: - -

(2.) HEARD Mr. C. Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. P. Mahadevan, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent.

(3.) IT could be seen that in SKF India Ltd. case (supra), the Supreme Court, relying upon the decision in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills 2009 taxmann.com 838, clearly held that in the scheme of the four sections (11A, 11AA, 11AB & 11AC) interest is leviable on delayed and deferred payment of duty for whatever reasons. In fine, the Supreme Court clearly held that payment of differential duty clearly came under sub -section (2B) of Section 11A and attracts levy of interest under Section 11AB of the Act. The relevant portion of the order of the Supreme Court in SKF India Ltd. case (supra) is extracted hereinbelow for easy reference: - -