CEAT LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE common issues is involved in all the three appeals and are therefore being taken up together. The appellants are manufacture of tyres, tubes and flaps these finished products are transferred to various distribution centers, sales depots and clearing and forwarding agencies to be sold in the replacement market. At the time of clearance from the factory, the appellants are not able to precisely determine the value of the goods as they grant various discounts, abatements, etc. It is therefore not possible for them to do the self -assessment at the time of clearance. Accordingly they are clearing the goods on provisional assessment basis under rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. After completion of the financial year they get their accounts audited and they are submitting certificate from the chartered accountant/cost accountant giving the details of the sales value, various discounts given, etc. Along with these details, they also calculate the value (and hence differential duty amount) on which they are required to pay the excise duty. They submit these details to the Divisional Deputy/Assistant Commissioner for finalisation of the provisional assessment for the previous year. While furnishing these details to the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner they also pay the differential duty without waiting for formal order of the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner. Order of finalisation of the assessment is issued by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner after few weeks/months (which is after payment of differential duty).

(2.) THE issue in dispute is whether they are liable to pay interest on the differential duty that would commence from the month succeeding the date on which the duty was due and payable in relation to the goods cleared till the date of payment of differential duty.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant draws our attention to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in, [2007] 209 ELT 280 (Trib. -Mum.) which has been upheld by the hon'ble Bombay High Court as reported in : [2010] 259 ELT 662 (Bom.). The learned counsel also stated that the said decision was followed by the Tribunal in the case of Tata Motors Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in : [2010] 1 GSTR 538 (Trib. -Mum.) : [2011] 269 ELT 415 (Trib. -Mum.). The learned counsel further stated that the appeal against the said order was also dismissed by the hon'ble Bombay High Court.