KEC International Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi)
Delhi High Court in the case of Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. (supra), which is based on the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner Vs. T.V.S. Whirlpool Ltd. (supra), I hold that 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, these appeals are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER
1. The issue in these appeals is regarding the adjustment of interest (out of refund arising subsequently), which is claimed to be time barred.
2. 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, if any, upon finalisation of the price between parties. The issue is the same in all the three appeals and the details are as under:-
