Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Anil Choudhary

ORDER

Anil Choudhary, Member (J)

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:-

S. No.	Appeal No.	SCN dated	Interest under Section 11AB	PV duty paid between
1.	E/742/2008-EX(SM)	30.08.2007	Rs. 5,75,185/-	April, 2005 to March, 2006
2.	E/2584/2010-EX(SM)	03.03.2009	Rs. 17,13,190/-	April, 2007 to Jan. 2008
3.	E/2585/2010-EX(SM)	22.05.2008	Rs. 15,61,196/-	Dec., 2006

3. During the course of audit, it was observed that the appellant had issued supplementary invoices on the price variation finalisation, in respect of the clearances made in the previous months. Thereafter, the appellant had paid the differential excise duty including cess against the price variation bills regularised for the goods cleared in the past on payment of duty. The Revenue issued show cause notices, as mentioned in the aforementioned tables. As the appellants had not paid the amount of interest for the period from the date of original invoice till the date of payment of differential duty, upon raising of the price variation bills/supplementary invoices, show cause notice was issued demanding amount of interest under Section 11AB read with Section 11A(2B) of the Act and further penalty was also proposed.

4. Show cause notice was adjudicated on contest by the Ld. Commissioner, who confirmed the proposed demand of interest and also penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal.

6. Ld. Counsel for the appellant urges that the issue of chargeability of interest for the period from the date of original invoice when the goods were cleared till the date of supplementary invoice or price variation invoice, and payment of differential duty, has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in favour of Revenue in the matter of Steel Authority of India Limited-MANU/SC/0709/2019 : 2019 (326) ELT 450 (S.C.) vide judgment dated 8.5.2019

7. Ld. Counsel further urges that they are challenging the levy of interest on the ground of limitation, urging that for want of condition precedent, the extended period of limitation is not available to Revenue. Admittedly, in the facts of the present case, the transaction is duly recorded in the books of accounts maintained in the ordinary course of business and proper vouchers have been maintained. Further, the appellant have been filing regular returns and paying the admitted taxes. Thus, the invocation of extended period of limitation is bad as there is no ele........