Interest on differential excise duty runs only from final crystallisation of liability, not from the original clearance period.

A departmental letter directing payment of interest was treated as not giving rise to a maintainable appeal under the statutory appellate scheme. On the substantive issue, interest on differential excise duty was held payable only from the date the duty liability was finally crystallised, not from the earlier clearance period when the liability remained unsettled. Applying that principle, the duty demand was regarded as having been determined only on the later appellate order, and the assessee's interest exposure was confined to the period after final determination. The impugned order was set aside, with consequential relief limited to the legally payable interest period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appeal lies against a departmental letter directing payment of interest; (ii) Whether interest on the differential excise duty was payable from the original period of clearance or only from the date on which the duty liability was finally determined.

Issue (i): Whether an appeal lies against a departmental letter directing payment of interest.

Analysis: The impugned communication was examined in the context of the statutory appellate scheme and the nature of the direction issued by the Department. The order under challenge had proceeded to reject the appeal on the ground that the letter was not an appealable order.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to be not maintainable against the departmental letter.

Issue (ii): Whether interest on the differential excise duty was payable from the original period of clearance or only from the date on which the duty liability was finally determined.

Analysis: The liability to pay interest was examined with reference to the point at which the differential duty became crystallised. Reliance was placed on the principle that where duty liability is redetermined in adjudication, interest cannot be computed from the original clearance period but only from the date of final determination of the duty. Applying that principle, the duty liability in the present matter was treated as having been redetermined on the date of the appellate order, and not from the earlier period for which the original clearances had been made on transaction value.

Conclusion: Interest was payable only from the date of final determination of the differential duty and not from the earlier clearance period.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the assessee was held liable only for the limited interest period following crystallisation of the duty demand, with consequential benefit in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Interest on differential duty becomes payable only from the date on which the duty liability is finally crystallised or determined, and not from the earlier period of clearance where such liability was still in dispute.

---