Interest on differential duty not payable under the fortnightly scheme when later dues arise from revised pricing or reclassification.

Interest under the fortnightly duty-payment scheme was confined to default in payment by the prescribed due date and could not be extended to differential duty later paid through supplementary invoices on revised pricing or reclassification of goods. Where the additional duty did not arise from failure to meet the scheduled duty payment obligation, Rule 173G(1)(d) did not authorise levy of interest in the absence of express statutory provision covering such later adjustments.

---

---

Issues: Whether interest could be levied under Rule 173G(1)(d) on differential duty paid later through supplementary invoices on revision of price or reclassification of goods.

Analysis: Rule 173G applies to duty payment under the fortnightly payment scheme approved by the Commissioner under Rule 47. The interest clause in Rule 173G(1)(d) is triggered only when the manufacturer fails to pay the amount of duty by the due date contemplated under that scheme. The differential duty in these matters arose later on account of revised pricing and reclassification, and not from default in fortnightly duty payment. In the absence of any provision extending interest liability to such situations, Rule 173G(1)(d) could not be invoked.

Conclusion: Interest was not leviable under Rule 173G(1)(d) on the differential duty in the facts of these appeals, and the assessee succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Interest under the fortnightly duty-payment provision is leviable only for failure to pay duty by the prescribed due date under that scheme and cannot be extended to differential duty later paid on revised pricing or reclassification unless the statute expressly so provides.

---