Appeal outcome on differential duty: penalty reduced, interest upheld. Interest is statutory; penalty not justified.

The appeal was filed against the order upholding the demand for differential duty on Sulphuric Acid. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty but upheld the demand for interest. The Tribunal held that interest is a statutory liability, but penalty imposition was not justified. The interest liability was to be discharged after the appellant received intimation from the Department. The penalty imposed on the appellants was set aside, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal against order upholding demand for differential duty on Sulphuric Acid, penalty imposition, liability for interest.

Differential Duty Issue: The appeal was filed against the order upholding the demand for differential duty on Sulphuric Acid cleared by the appellants to another unit. The duty paid at the time of clearance was found to be less than payable as per Valuation Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty but upheld the demand for interest. The appellants had already paid the differential duty, and there was no dispute about it.

Penalty Imposition: The Manager-Excise and Customs argued that no penalty should be levied as it was a practice to work out the differential duty after finalization of the cost audit report. The Revenue contended that interest is payable when demand for differential duty arises due to revision of value. The Tribunal held that interest is a statutory liability, but penalty imposition was not justified in this case. The penalty imposed on the appellants was set aside.

Liability for Interest: The Tribunal found that interest is payable when demand for differential duty arises as a result of revision of value. The interest liability was to be discharged after the appellant received intimation from the Department. The appeal was disposed of with these terms.

---