Differential duty and interest under central excise were rejected where factual findings showed no surviving duty demand.

Where goods were cleared both to independent buyers at the factory gate and to a sister concern for captive consumption, the applicable valuation framework under Rule 4 of the Central Excise Rules, 2000 was applied on the facts found by the Tribunal, and differential duty was held not payable. The Court declined to disturb that factual conclusion and distinguished the Revenue's authorities as fact-specific. As the differential duty demand did not survive, interest on supplementary-invoice payments also could not be sustained. The Court additionally accepted the Tribunal's reliance on revenue neutrality and the incongruity of fastening interest liability in the circumstances, leaving the assessee's relief undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether differential duty was payable where goods were cleared both to independent buyers and to a sister concern for captive consumption; (ii) whether interest was payable on the differential duty paid under supplementary invoices.

Issue (i): Whether differential duty was payable where goods were cleared both to independent buyers and to a sister concern for captive consumption.

Analysis: The appeal turned on the factual finding that the assessee sold goods at the factory gate to independent buyers and also transferred goods to its sister concern for captive consumption. The applicable valuation framework under Rule 4 of the Central Excise Rules, 2000 was considered, and on the facts found by the Tribunal, the differential duty was not payable in this appeal. The Court found no reason to disturb that conclusion, and distinguished the authorities relied upon by the Revenue as turning on different facts where differential duty was undisputedly payable.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest was payable on the differential duty paid under supplementary invoices.

Analysis: Once the Tribunal's finding that the demand for differential duty did not survive on the facts was upheld, the further claim for interest on such differential duty could not be sustained. The Court also accepted the Tribunal's reliance on the principle that, in the setting of revenue neutrality and voluntary payment of duty in the circumstances discussed, fastening interest liability would lead to an incongruous result, consistent with the understanding of Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: No substantial question of law warranted interference, and the Tribunal's relief to the assessee was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the factual matrix shows no payable differential duty on the relevant clearances, interest on supplementary-invoice payments cannot be sustained, and revenue neutrality supports rejection of an incongruous interest demand.

---