News Update

Bengaluru Customs nabs 4 pax with gold powder worth Rs 1.96 CroreKejriwal’s assistant put in police custody for 5 days in Swati Maliwal caseAllahabad HC upholds decision to dismiss judicial officer demanding dowryNawaz Sharif alleges former Chief Justice plotted to oust him as PM in 2017Heavy downpours claim 50 lives in Central AfghanistanSoaring funeral costs compelling people to let go bodies unclaimed in Canada9 pilgrims burnt to death as bus catches fire near Nuh in HaryanaSpain denies dock permission to Indian ship carrying arms to Israel12 Unicorns, over 125 startups commit to onboarding ONDCBEML secures Rs 250 crore order from Northern Coal FieldsBharat Parv celebration takes centerstage at Cannes Film FestivalSteel industry should work towards reducing emissions: Steel SecretaryI-T - Additions framed on account of unexplained cash credit & unexplained money, are not tenable where cash deposits & withdrawals were of personal funds & were done through banking channels: ITATUS says not too many vibrant democracies in the world than IndiaI-T - Benefit of section 11(2) can not be denied merely on reasoning that form 10 is filed belatedly: ITATSwati Maliwal case takes new turn with Kejriwal’s assistant Bibhav Kumar filing FIR against herI-T- Unexplained money - Additions sustained as assessee unable to provide proper explanation for amount withdrawn & subsequently deposited into same bank account: ITATIndia says Chabahar Port to benefit Central Asia and AfghanistanRussia seizes Italy’s UniCredit assets worth USD 463 mnCus - Order re-determining transaction value based on CRCL test report is not correct & hence unsustainable: CESTATPutin says NO to Macron’s call for ceasefire in Ukraine during OlympicsCus - If price is not sole consideration for sale, then transaction value can be rejected under Rule 8 of Export Valuation Rules & then must be redetermined sequentially through Rules 4 to 6: CESTATSC upholds ICAI rules capping number of audits per year
 
CX - Provisional Assessment - Rule 7 of CER, 2002 - Interest is leviable even where differential duty was paid prior to finalisation of assessment - Bombay HC decisions in CEAT & Ispat Industries disagreed: Allahabad HC

By TIOL News Service

ALLAHABAD, AUG 25, 2015: AT the time of despatch of the goods, CE duty is provisionally paid by the appellant u/r 7 of CER, 2002. Immediately, on the approval of the final price, adjustment bills of differential duty, if any, is raised and paid or a refund claim is lodged depending on the price which is fixed. The final assessment order is, thereafter,passed by the excise authorities.

The jurisdictional authority demanded interest on the differential duty u/s 11AB of the CEA, 1944.

Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals and since unsuccessful at all levels, they are before the High Court.

The appellant contended that in the instant case, all duties have been paid prior to the date of the final assessment and, therefore, no interest could be chargeable. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on the Bombay High Court decision in Ispat Industries Ltd. - 2010-TIOL-923-HC-MUM-CX wherein the High Court held that interest is payable on the differential duty but where the differential duty was paid prior to the final assessment, no interest was payable on such differential duty and also the decision in CEAT Limited - 2015-TIOL-397-HC-MUM-CX wherein the Bombay High Court held that the liability to pay interest does not arise unless the finalisation of the assessment results in any additional or differential liability.

The counsel for the Revenue submitted that interest has been levied in terms of Rule 7(4) of the Rules framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 37 of the Act. Support is derived from the apex court decision in SKF India Ltd. - 2009-TIOL-82-SC-CX & International Auto - 2010-TIOL-05-SC-CX, wherein it is held that the differential duty paid after the date of clearance indicates short payment/short levy on the date of removal, hence interest, which is for the loss of revenue, becomes leviable.

The High Court observed -

+ There is no doubt that interest is compensatory in nature and is imposed on an assessed amount who has withheld any tax as and when it was due and payable. Levy of interest is on actual amount of tax withheld and the extent of the delay in paying the tax on the due date as held by the Supreme Court in Pratibha Processors Vs. Union of India, - 2002-TIOL-273-SC-CUS

+ Section 37(2)(ibb) of the Act clearly provides that the Central Government may make rules including rules conferring powers to provide for charging of interest on the differential amount of duty, which becomes payable or refundable upon finalisation of all or any class of provisional assessment. The provision of law comprised thereunder nowhere specifies such Rules shall restrict the levy of interest for the period consequent to the finalisation of the assessment, rather it specifies that the Rules may provide for interest on the differential amount of duty becoming payable consequent upon the finalisation of assessment.

+ The expression "becoming payable" would obviously relate to the date on which the duty was required to be paid. Considering the provisions of Section 4 of the said Act, the duty becomes payable at the time of the removal of the goods consequent to the manufacture thereof.

+ Merely because the differential amount of duty is ascertained consequent to the finalisation of assessment, the due date for payment of such amount never changes nor is extended. It would always relate to the date of removal of the goods thereof.

+ It is only the quantification of the differential amount of duty is ascertained consequent to the finalisation of assessment, and that too merely because the assessee was not able to ascertain the exact quantum of duty in the absence of sufficient material to finalize the valuation of the goods at the time of clearance of goods.

+ The provisions (of Rule 7(4)) specifically state that the interest liability will commence from the month succeeding the month "for" which such amount is determined. The expression "for" refers to the month for which the amount is determined pursuant to finalisation of assessment. Apparently, it discloses that the interest liability would commence from the month succeeding the day on which the duty was due and payable in relation to the goods cleared.

+ The expression "for" as provided under Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 2002 refers to the month for which the amount is determined pursuant to the finalisation of assessment and hence, interest liability would commence from the month succeeding the month for which the duty was due and payable in relation to the goods cleared.

After citing the ratio of the apex court decision in the case of SKF India Ltd. & International Auto and mentioning that it disagreed with the decisions of the Bombay High Court in the cases of Ispat Industries Ltd. & CEAT Ltd., the High Court held - Interest is leviable even where differential duty was paid prior to the finalisation of the assessment in view of Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 2002.

The appeal was dismissed.

(See 2015-TIOL-1949-HC-ALL-CX)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.


Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.