SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, JJ.
M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2150 OF 2012 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2562 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 599 OF 2013 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 600 OF 2013 A N D CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1522-1523 OF 2013
Decided On : 07-12-2015
(a) Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 11AB – Expression 'ought to have been paid' would mean the time when the price is agreed upon by the seller and the buyer – Duty on revised price would become due on the date the revised price is agreed – Differential duty on account of price revision is paid in the month when the revised price is agreed between the seller (assessee) and the buyer and it ought to have been paid only at that time and not before – In cases of price revision quantum of duty would be on the escalated price but payment of differential duty will become due is when the parties agree for the escalation in prices – Interest will become payable from the date when the parties agree for the escalation in prices. (Para 19, 20)
(1997) 5 SCC 104; (1994) 4 SCC 276 – Relied upon
(2009) 13 SCC 461; (2010) 2 SCC 672 – Distinguished
(b) Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 11AB – Interest – Penal in nature, not compensatory. (Para 25)
(1994) 4 SCC 276 – Relied upon
(1981) 4 SCC 578 – Distinguished
(c) Administration of Justice – Reconsideration of earlier judgment – SKF India Ltd. and International Auto Limited both by same Bench holding that interest on differential duty on price variation would be payable from the date of removal of goods – This being in contrast to MRF Ltd. which held that differential duty and interest thereon would be payable from the date of agreement on varied price – SKF India Ltd. and International Auto Limited require relook – Matter placed before CJI for reconsideration by a larger Bench. (Para 26, 27)
(1965) 2 SCR 908 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products falling under Chapter 72 and 73 of the schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The final products manufactured includes rails which are cleared on payment of appropriate duty of excise leviable thereon. The assessee sold the rails to the Indian Railways in terms of the Price Circular No. LP-06 of 2005 dated 24.02.2005 w.e.f. 01.07.2004.
In terms of the prices quoted in the purchase orders, the assessee discharged central excise duty at the time of removal of the rails to the Indian Railways. Such price was the “transaction value” of the goods in terms of Section 4 of the Act at the given time. In terms of the price variation clause and also in terms of the agreement with the Indian Railways, the price circular dated 24.02.2005 effective from 01.07.2004 was revised upwards with increase in the agreed upon price. A revised price circular No. LP-010/06 dated 20.07.2006 was issued revising the agreed upon price.
In terms of the revised price circular the assessee discharged differential duty of Rs.142,78,88,172/-on the rails cleared during the period from January, 2005 to July, 2006. The differential duty was paid in August, 2006 under intimation to the Departmental Authorities.
On scrutiny of ER-1 return filed by the assessee for the month of August, 2006, a show cause notice dated 01.06.2007 was issued to the assessee contending that in respect of the differential duty of Rs.142.78 crores paid in August, 2006, the assessee are required to pay an interest of Rs.15,51,81,231/-under Section 11AB of the Act.
The Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur passed order dated 31.10.2007 confirming the amount of interest proposed in the show cause notice and also imposing penalty of Rs.2,00,000/-. Against the order dated 31.10.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur, assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal which has been dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
In view of contrasting opinions in SKF India Ltd. and International Auto Limited on the one hand and MRF Ltd. on the other, matter placed before a larger Bench.
JUDGMENT
A.K. SIKRI, J.
In all these appeals, identical question of law is involved and for the sake of brevity, we are discussing the question of law by taking note of the facts from Civil Appeal No. 2150 of 2012.
2. The appellant/assessee herein, which is a public sector undertaking of the Government of India, has been selling iron and steel products, that are manufactured by it, to the Indian Railways. For this purpose, contract was signed between the said two parties and the goods were being sold to the Indian Railways at the price mutually agreed upon between them. On each removal of these goods for supply to the Railways, the assessee had been paying the excise duty as per the price disclosed by the assessee in the invoices issued at the time of the removal of the goods. Goods in this manner were supplied during the period January, 2005 to July, 2006 which period is involved in the instant appeal. It so happened that there was an upward revision in the price by the Railways in August, 2006 covering the period in question. On that basis, assessee was paid the price difference on the fixation of enhanced consideration for the goods supplied. The assessee paid the differential duty of Rs.142.78 crores voluntarily in August, 2006. According to the Revenue/respondent, since the differential duty was paid in August, 2006 and not paid at the time of clearance of the goods, there was delay in paying the differential duty and, therefore, under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the assessee was liable to pay interest on the differential duty amount paid by it. The contention of the Revenue has been upheld by the Authorities below including Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal').
3. The question, thus, that arises for consideration in these appeals is as to whether interest is leviable under Section 11AB of the Act on the differential duty amount paid under supplementary invoices due to price increase by virtue of price variation clause in the sale contract. Now, facts in some detail:
The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products falling under Chapter 72 and 73 of the schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The final products manufactured includes rails. The final products manufactured by the assessee are cleared on payment of appropriate duty of excise leviable thereon. The final products are either directly sold at the factory gate or are transferred to various Branch Sales Offices from where they are sold to the customers. The sales either from the factory or from the BSOs are in terms of purchase orders received from the customers. The assessee sold the rails to the Indian Railways in terms of the Price Circular No. LP-06 of 2005 dated 24.02.2005 w.e.f. 01.07.2004.
In terms of the prices quoted in the purchase orders, the assessee discharged central excise duty at the time of removal of the rails to the Indian Railways. Such price was the “transaction value” of the goods in terms of Section 4 of the Act at the given time. In terms of the price variation clause and also in terms of the agreement with the Indian Railways, the price circular dated 24.02.2005 effective from 01.07.2004 was revised upwards with increase in the agreed upon price. A revised price circular No. LP-010/06 dated 20.07.2006 was issued revising the agreed upon price.
In terms of the revised price circular the assessee discharged differential duty of Rs.142,78,88,172/-on the rails cleared during the period from January, 2005 to July, 2006. The differential duty was paid in August, 2006 under intimation to the Departmental Authorities.
4. In the above background, on a scrutiny of ER-1 return filed by the assessee for the month of August, 2006, a show cause notice dated 01.06.2007 was issued to the assessee contending that in respect of the differential duty of Rs.142.78 crores paid in August, 2006, the assessee are required
CCE v. International Auto Limited
MRF Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras
J.K. Synthetics Limited v. Commercial Taxes Officer
Associated Cement Company Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer, Kota
Keshav Mills Company Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.