IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CEA No.106 of 2008 Date of decision: 27.7.2010 Commissioner of Central Excise. -----Appellant. Vs. M/s Goodyear India Ltd. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ajay Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, “the Act”) against order dated 12.3.2008, Annexure P-2, of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. 2. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of rubber tyres. During scrutiny of records of the assessee, it was alleged that the assessee failed to pay the amount of interest due as per Central Excise Rules, 2002. Accordingly, demand for interest was raised and penalty was also imposed by the original authority. On appeal, the Tribunal set aside the levy of interest and penalty following judgment of the Tribunal in CCE, Aurangabad v. M/s Rucha Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 2006-TIOL- CEA No.106 of 2008 885-CESTAT-MUM. Against the said order, appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. On further appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the matter had been remanded for fresh decision in the light of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v. SKF India Ltd. [2009] 239 ELT 385 and MRF LTd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras 1997 (92) ELT 309. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SKF India Ltd. (supra), liability of interest arises if there was short levy and judgment of the Tribunal in M/s Rucha Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (supra), had been disapproved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, submits that proceedings by invoking extended period of limitation were not justified and in absence of mens rea, penalty could not be levied. 6. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SKF India Ltd. (supra), the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. However, on the question of limitation and quantification, we do not express any opinion at this stage, since the matter was decided by the Tribunal only on the basis of judgment of the Tribunal in M/s Rucha Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which has been disapproved. 2 CEA No.106 of 2008 7. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law. 8. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings on 8.11.2010. The appeal is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 27, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3