ORDER : By this excise appeal, a challenge is made to the order dated 14th July, 2015 passed by Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"). 2. A short controversy involved in the present matter is regarding limitation for addition of interest after submission of supplementary invoices. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the revenue has referred two judgments of the Apex Court on the issue. The first judgment is in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune v. SKF India Ltd. reported in (2009) 13 SCC 461 : 2009 (239) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.) and other is in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. International Auto Ltd. reported in 2010 (250) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). Therein, the issue has been decided in favour of the revenue and interest was made admissible for the entire period. Accordingly, a prayer is made to set aside the order of the Tribunal as it has relied on the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Neel Metal Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III reported in 2014 (306) E.L.T. 367 (P&H). The dispute about addition of interest was decided in favour of the revenue subject to limitation of one year for the period of demand whereas the Apex Court has decided the issue otherwise. A prayer is accordingly to cover the present case by the judgments of Apex Court in the cases of SKF India Ltd. and International Auto Ltd. (supra). 4. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee has contested the case. It is submitted that two judgments of Apex Court referred by the revenue has been taken into consideration by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur in Civil Appeal No. 2150/2012, decided on 7th December, 2015 [2015 (326) E.L.T. 450 (S.C.)] along with connected appeals. Doubting the correctness of the judgment in two cases, the matter has been referred to Larger Bench. In view of the aforesaid, the issue is yet to be determined by the Apex Court. Accordingly, a prayer is made not to cover this appeal by the judgments in the cases of SKF India Ltd. and International Auto Ltd. (supra). Doubting the correctness of the judgment in two cases, the matter has been referred to Larger Bench. In view of the aforesaid, the issue is yet to be determined by the Apex Court. Accordingly, a prayer is made not to cover this appeal by the judgments in the cases of SKF India Ltd. and International Auto Ltd. (supra). If, at all, this Court is of the opinion that Apex Court has already determined the issue raised herein then while covering the present appeal by the judgments in the case of SKF India Ltd. and International Auto Ltd. (supra), it may be made clear that if the reference is ultimately decided in favour of the assessee, it would apply to the present case also. 5. Learned counsel for the revenue has no objection if while accepting the appeal in reference to the judgments in the cases of SKF India Ltd. and International Auto Ltd. (supra), it is made clear that present appeal would finally be covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra). 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The order of the Tribunal has been challenged where following questions of law were formulated, which are quoted hereunder for ready reference : (i) Whether the appellant is required to pay interest on differential duty which was paid later on the strength of supplementary invoices or not. (ii) In such cases whether the extended period of limitation is invokable or not. 8. We find that the same very issue was considered and decided by the Apex Court in the case of International Auto Ltd. (supra). Relevant part of the said judgment is quoted hereunder for ready reference : "7. We find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the assessee. The controversy arising in this civil appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune v. SKF India Limited reported in 2009 (239) E.L.T. 385 . We quote herein below relevant observations made in the case of SKF India Limited (supra), which reads as follows : 9. Section 11A puts the cases of non-levy or short levy, non-payment or short-payment or erroneous refund of duty in two categories. We quote herein below relevant observations made in the case of SKF India Limited (supra), which reads as follows : 9. Section 11A puts the cases of non-levy or short levy, non-payment or short-payment or erroneous refund of duty in two categories. One in which the non-payment or short-payment, etc., of duty is for a reason other than deceit; the default is due to oversight or some mistake and it is not intentional. The second in which the non-payment or short-payment, etc., of duty is "by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or of Rules made there under with intent to evade payment of duty" that is to say, it is intentional, deliberate and/or by deceitful means. Naturally, the cases falling in the two groups lead to different consequences and are dealt with differently. Section 11A, however allow the assessees in default in both kinds of cases to make amends, subject of course to certain terms and conditions. The cases where the non-payment or short-payment, etc., of duty is by reason of fraud collusion, etc., are dealt with under sub-section (1A) of Section 11A and the cases where the non-payment or short-payment of duty is not intentional under sub-section (2B). 10. Sub-section (2B) of Section 11A provides that the assessee in default may, before the notice issued under sub-section (1) is served on him, make payment of the unpaid duty on the basis of his own ascertainment or as ascertained by a Central Excise Officer and inform the Central Excise Officer in writing about the payment made by him and in that event he would not be given the demand notice under sub-section (1). But Explanation 2 to the sub-section makes it expressly clear that such payment would not be exempt from interest chargeable under Section 11AB, that is, for the period from the first date of the month succeeding the month in which the duty ought to have been paid till the date of payment of the duty. But Explanation 2 to the sub-section makes it expressly clear that such payment would not be exempt from interest chargeable under Section 11AB, that is, for the period from the first date of the month succeeding the month in which the duty ought to have been paid till the date of payment of the duty. What is stated in Explanation 2 to sub-section (2B) is reiterated in Section 11AB that states 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.... It is thus to be seen that unlike penalty that is attracted to the category of cases in which the non-payment or short payment, etc., of duty is "by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or of Rules made there under with intent to evade payment of duty", under the scheme of the four Sections (11A, 11AA, 11AB & 11AC) interest is leviable on delayed or deferred payment of duty for whatever reasons. 11. The payment of differential duty by the assessee at the time of issuance of supplementary invoices to the customers demanding the balance of the revised prices clearly falls under the provision of sub-section (2B) of Section 11A of the Act. 12. The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, in its decision in The Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad v. Rucha Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (First Appeal No. 42 of 2007) that was relied upon by the Tribunal for dismissing the Revenue's appeal took the view that there would be no application of Section 11A(2B) or Section 11AB where differential duty was paid by the assessee as soon as it came to learn about the upward revision of prices of goods sold earlier. In M/s. Rucha Engineering the High Court observed as follows : It is evident that the Section 11AB comes into play if the duty paid/levied is short. Both, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the CESTAT have observed that the assessee paid the duty on its own accord immediately when the revised rates became known to them from their customers. In M/s. Rucha Engineering the High Court observed as follows : It is evident that the Section 11AB comes into play if the duty paid/levied is short. Both, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the CESTAT have observed that the assessee paid the duty on its own accord immediately when the revised rates became known to them from their customers. The differential duty was due at that time, i.e., when the revised rates applicable with retrospective effect were learnt by the assessee, which was much after the clearance of the goods and therefore, question of payment of interest does not arise as the duty was paid as soon as it was learnt that it was payable. Finding that provisions of Section 11A(2) and 11A(2B) were not applicable as the situation occurred in the instant case was quite different, Section 11AB(1) was not at all applicable, and therefore, the assessee was not required to pay interest. 13. It further held that a case of this nature would not fall in the category where duty of excise was not paid or short-paid. 14. We are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the High Court. It is to be noted that the assessee was able to demand from its customers the balance of the higher prices by virtue of retrospective revision of the prices. It, therefore, follows that at the time of sale the goods carried a higher value and those were cleared on short payment of duty. The differential duty was paid only later when the assessee issued supplementary invoices to its customers demanding the balance amounts. Seen thus it was clearly a case of short-payment of duty though indeed completely unintended and without any element of deceit, etc. The payment of differential duty thus clearly came under sub-section (2B) of Section 11A and attracted levy of interest under Section 11AB of the Act. 8. Section 11A of the Act deals with recovery of duty not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid. The said section, which stood inserted by Act 25 of 1978, underwent a sea-change when Parliament inserted major changes in that section vide Act 14 of 2001 (with effect from 11st May, 2001) and Act 32 of 2003 (with effect from 14th May, 2003). It needs to be mentioned that simultaneously Act 14 of 2001 also made changes to Section 11AB of the Act. It needs to be mentioned that simultaneously Act 14 of 2001 also made changes to Section 11AB of the Act. In the case of S.K.F. India Limited (supra), it has been, inter alia, held, as can be seen from the above-quoted paragraphs, that sub-section 2(B) of Section 11A provides that the assessee in default may make payment of the unpaid duty on the basis of his own ascertainment or as ascertained by a Central Excise Officer and, in that event, such assessee in default would not be served with the Demand Notice under Section 11A(1) of the Act. However, Explanation (2) to the sub-section makes it clear that such payment would not be exempt from interest chargeable under Section 11AB of the Act. What is stated in Explanation (2) to sub-section 2(B) is reiterated in Section 11AB of the Act, which deals with interest on delayed payment of duty. From the Scheme of Section 11A(2B) and Section 11AB of the Act, it becomes clear that interest is levied for loss of revenue on any count. In the present case, one fact remains undisputed, namely, accrual of price differential. What does differential price signify? It signifies that value, which is the function of the price, on the date of removal/clearance of the goods was not correct. That, it was understated. Therefore, the price indicated by the supplementary invoice is directly relatable to the value of the goods on the date of clearance, hence, enhanced duty. This enhanced duty is on the corrected value of the goods on the date of removal. When the differential duty is paid after the date of clearance, it indicates short-payment/short-levy on the date of removal, hence, interest which is for loss of revenue, becomes leviable under Section 11AB of the Act. In our view, with the entire change in the Scheme of recovery of duty under the Act, particularly after insertion of Act 14 of 2001 and Act 32 of 2003, the judgment of this Court in the case of M.R.F. Limited (supra), would not apply. That judgment was on interpretation of Section 11B of the Act, which concerns claim for refund of duty by the assessee. That judgment was in the context of the price list approved on 14th May, 1983. That judgment was on interpretation of Section 11B of the Act, which concerns claim for refund of duty by the assessee. That judgment was in the context of the price list approved on 14th May, 1983. In that case, assessee had made a claim for refund of excise duty on the differential between the price on the date of removal and the reduced price at which tyres were sold. The price was approved by the Government. In that case, the assessee submitted that its price list was approved by the Government on 14th May, 1983, but subsequent thereto, on account of consumer resistance, the Government of India directed the assessee to roll back the prices to pre-14th May, 1983 level and on that account, price differential arose on the basis of which the assessee claimed refund of excise duty which stood rejected by this Court on the ground that once the assessee had cleared the goods on classification, the assessee became liable to payment of duty on the date of removal and subsequent reduction in the prices for whatever reason cannot be made a matter of concern to the Department insofar as the liability to pay excise duty was concerned. In the present case, we are concerned with the imposition of interest which, as stated above, is charged to compensate the Department for loss of revenue. Be that as it may, as stated above, the Scheme of Section 11A of the Act has since undergone substantial change and, in the circumstances, in our view, the judgment of this Court in the case of M.R.F. Limited (supra), has no application to the facts of this case. In our view, the judgment of this Court in the case of SKF India Limited (supra), is squarely applicable to the facts of this case." 9. The issue aforesaid was earlier considered and decided by the Apex Court in the case of SKF India Ltd. (supra). Therein, it was held that Explanation (2) to sub-section (2B) of Section 11A makes it clear that payment by the assessee in default by own ascertainment or as ascertained by C.E., the assessee is not exempted from interest chargeable under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "Act of 1944"). The interest would be leviable on the loss of the revenue. The interest would be leviable on the loss of the revenue. The differential price signifies the value on date on removal and thereby, the payment of enhanced duty would attract the interest from the date of removal of goods. The interest was held leviable as per Section 11AB of the Act of 1944. It was further made clear that value, which is function of the price on the date of removal/clearance of the goods and the price indicated by the supplementary invoices is directly relatable to the value of goods on the date of clearance, interest would be chargeable accordingly. 10. We find that issue determined by the Apex Court in two cases, referred to above, have been taken into consideration again by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra), and the question has been referred to the Larger Bench. It is admitted by the learned counsel that issue has not been answered by the Larger Bench on the reference in the case of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra). In view of the above, till date, the judgments of Apex Court in the cases of SKF India Ltd. and International Auto Ltd. (supra), hold field and accordingly, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal deserves to be set aside in reference to the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of SKF India Ltd. and International Auto Ltd. (supra), and accordingly, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 11. Accordingly, while accepting the appeal in reference to the judgments in the cases of SKF India Ltd. and International Auto Ltd. (supra), the impugned order is set aside. The issue is ordered to be governed by the judgment in the case of International Auto Ltd. (supra). We make it clear that if the reference is answered in favour of the assessee in the case of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra), it would apply to the present case also and in that case, right of the assessee and the revenue would be governed by the outcome of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra). 12. 12. We further make it clear that the issue having been referred to the Larger Bench, the revenue would not take coercive action against the assessee till the issue referred to the Larger Bench is decided in the case of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra). If the question is decided in favour of the revenue, the appellant would be at liberty to recover the amount. Appeal allowed.