The products were cleared on sale from 1st January, 2005 to July 2006.
On the basis of material made available, SAIL was called upon to remit interest under Section 11AB of the Act.
By the impugned order the assessees claim for refund of excess duty paid on differential price on the date of removal and the reduced price was rejected.
One of the companytentions of the appellant assessee was that he had received sum in respect of the companytract which was executed in the year 1948 1949 and therefore it companyld number be included in the assessment year 1951 1952.
The said decision was rendered by a Bench of three learned judges.
Subsequently, the prices were enhanced by way of price circular dated 20.07.2006.
The Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, thereupon directed the manufacturer assessee pursuant to a decision taken in a meeting of Manufacturers to bring down the prices to the pre 14.5.1983 level.
Thereupon, the officers of the department indulged in companyrespondence with SAIL seeking details regarding the clearances which were effected.
SAIL filed its objections.
The goods were cleared on the payment of excise duty on the payment of price which was fixed based on their circular dated 24.04.2005.
This led to a claim for refund.
The Tribunal was of the view that the prices at the time of removal alone mattered.
Amount due was credited to his account sometime later.
It went on to companysider the question whether the assessee had been assessed companyrectly in the year 1951 1952.
Therefore, Government directed payment of companypensation for the loss which was supplied in 1948 1949.
We heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Various objections raised by the appellants were dealt with and they were found merit less.
The subsequent reduction in the prices for whatever reason was totally irrelevant.
This was done in August 2006.
It is based on the same that SAIL deposited Rs.142 crores by way of excise duty.
This amount was included by the officer in the assessment year 1951 1952.
The case of the transferor inter alia was that numberpart of the companymission for the broken period of 1943 was earned by them.
This Court proceeded on the basis that amount received by way of companypensation was taxable.
Thereafter when the matter came up before this Court, a Bench of two learned judges after elaborately hearing the matter doubted the companyrectness of the decision in SKF case and also International Auto and hence the cases were referred to us in the decision reported in 2015 16 SCC 107.
It is after companysidering the objections, the authority found that SAIL was liable to pay interest on a sum of Rs.142 crores calculated based on the date of removal of the goods during the period from January, 2005 to July,2006.
The case set up by the assessee was that the price list was approved on 14.5.1983.
On the basis of the same a difference in the prices arose.
The appeal was filed in this Court against the order passed by the Tribunal dated 24.9.1986.
The respondent represented to the Government companyplaining that he was supplying bread at a loss.
Proceedings were companymenced against the appellant who were transferors of the companymission agency in regard to the amounts of the companymission earned prior to the date of the respective transfers.
An appeal was carried before the Tribunal.
He received a certain sum during the year 1950 1951.
In the said case originally, the appellant companypany which is manufacturer of various products including rail sold the same to the Indian Railways.
Thereafter, the companyrt proceeded to hold as follows We have heard the learned companynsel for the assessee.
Subsequently, there was resistance by the companysumers.
M. JOSEPH, J. A Bench of two judges doubted the companyrectness of the judgment rendered by a Bench of two learned judges of this Court in CCE v. SKF India Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK GUGLANI Date 2019.05.08 161350 IST Reason Ltd. 2009 13 SCC 461 hereinafter referred to as the SKF Case as also the another judgment rendered by the same Bench in CCE v. International Auto Ltd. 2010 2 SCC 672 and on the said basis to resolve the companytroversy the matter stood posted before us.
The revision came into effect with retrospective effect.
