1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Central Excise Appal No. 7 of 2011 Indian Explosives Limited, Chandrapur VERSUS The Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Nagpur - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S. N. Kapoor, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S. K. Mishra, Advocate for the respondent CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : JUNE 29, 2011. Heard Mr. S. N. Kapoor, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. K. Mishra, the learned counsel for the respondent. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 15/9/2010, confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Nagpur, holding that the demand of interest under Section 11 AB of the Central Excise Act, was just and proper. It is not in dispute that the appellant had paid the differential duty after the clearance of the goods. The Department, therefore, claimed interest on the differential duty under Section 11 AB of the 2 Central Excise Act. It was the case of the appellant before the authorities and the Tribunal that it was difficult for the appellant to arrive at the cost of manufacture at the time of clearance and hence, at the end of the financial year, when the actual data of cost was available, the appellant paid the differential duty, whenever lesser duty was paid at the time of clearance of the goods. It is the case of the appellant that as the differential duty was paid after arriving at the cost of manufacture, the demand of interest was not sustainable. Both the authorities, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, held that the demand of interest under Section 11 AB of the Central Excise Act, was in accordance with law. We do not find any infirmity with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal rightly followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in 2009 (239) E.L.T. 385 (Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune .vs. SKF India Ltd.) to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed in paragraph 10 of the reported judgment that where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded, the person who has paid the duty under sub-section (2B) of Section 11A, shall in addition to the duty, be liable to pay interest. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that unlike penalty which was attracted only to the category of cases in 3 which non-payment or short payment etc. of duty is “by reason of fraud, collusion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder with an intent to evade payment of duty”, under the scheme of Section 11 AB, interest is leviable on deferred or delayed payment of duty for whatever reasons. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the afore-stated reported Judgment, it could not have been said by the appellant that since the differential duty was paid by the appellant after arriving at the cost of manufacture, the demand of interest was not sustainable. Since, the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal are just and proper and since, no substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal, the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale