Differential duty on revised prices does not attract interest where extra duty arises only after supplementary invoices.

Interest was not leviable on differential duty arising from subsequent price revision and supplementary invoices, because the duty shortfall did not stem from default in the prescribed fortnightly payment of duty. The Tribunal applied the view that Rule 173G(1)(d) of the Central Excise Rules governs delayed payment of duty within the regular payment cycle, not later duty arising only after an enhanced price is agreed. On that basis, only the differential duty was payable and no interest could be charged on the revised amount, with the issue decided in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether interest is leviable on differential duty paid pursuant to revision of price and issuance of supplementary invoices.

Analysis: The appeal concerned liability to interest where the goods had been cleared initially and duty was later paid on the enhanced price through supplementary invoices. The prevailing view applied by the Tribunal was that interest under Rule 173G(1)(d) of the Central Excise Rules is linked to default in payment of duty by the prescribed due date for fortnightly payments, and that provision does not govern situations where differential duty arises only because of subsequent price revision. In such cases, only the differential duty is payable, and interest is not attracted.

Conclusion: Interest was held not leviable on the differential duty arising from price variation and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---