Supreme Court: Past Ad Hoc Service Counts for Pension, Not Seniority Against Direct Recruits  ||  SC: CPC Amendment Allowed When New Facts and Reliefs Directly Relate to Existing Dispute  ||  SC: Governing Law Clause Relevant to Determine Arbitral Seat When Two Venues Are Named  ||  Supreme Court: Section 161 CrPC Statements Can Be Considered at Cognizance Stage, Not at Trial  ||  Bombay High Court Directs Release of Protesters Held over Anti-ECI Agitations  ||  Kerala High Court Orders State to Pay Rs. 21,000 Post-Surgery Assistance to Transgender Person  ||  Madras High Court: DVAC Not Entitled to Blanket RTI Exemption in Corruption Cases  ||  Karnataka High Court Strikes Down Enhanced SC/ST Quota for Breaching 50% Reservation Cap  ||  Delhi HC: First-Come, First-Served Policy for Ramleela Ground Allotment is Unfair  ||  Kerala HC Upholds Automatic Revocation of Christian Wills on Marriage under S.69 Succession Act    

Kec International Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Jaipur I - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (15 Mar 2022)

Benefit of extended period of limitation is not available to Revenue when there being no element of fraud, mis-statement or contumacious conduct

MANU/CE/0090/2022

Excise

The brief facts are that the Appellants are registered with the Central Excise Department and engaged in the manufacture of galvanised towers and structures, which are dutiable. The Appellants supplied their goods, which are subject to Price Escalation Clause, as per purchase agreement and deposited the differential excise duty, upon finalisation of the price between parties.

During the course of audit, it was observed that the Appellant had issued supplementary invoices on the price variation finalisation, in respect of the clearances made in the previous months. Thereafter, the Appellant had paid the differential excise duty including cess against the price variation bills regularised for the goods cleared in the past on payment of duty. The Revenue issued show cause notices. As the Appellants had not paid the amount of interest for the period from the date of original invoice till the date of payment of differential duty, upon raising of the price variation bills/ supplementary invoices, show cause notice was issued demanding amount of interest and further penalty was also proposed.

Show cause notice was adjudicated on contest by the learned Commissioner, who confirmed the proposed demand of interest and also penalty of Rs.5,000 under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal.

The benefit of extended period of limitation is not available to Revenue in the present matters, there being no element of fraud, mis-statement or contumacious conduct on the part of the Appellant. Thus, the demand of interest is hit by limitation. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside. Appeals allowed.

Tags : DEMAND   PENALTY   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved