No interest on duty paid within circular deadline; duty quantification remanded for fresh verification.

Where a Board circular fixed 5 October 2004 as the date for discharge of duty after withdrawal of warehousing facility, interest was not payable if the entire duty liability was paid within that stipulated period. The Tribunal also held that the alleged arithmetical error in duty computation had not been examined by the adjudicating authority, so the quantification issue required limited fresh consideration. The interest demand was therefore set aside to that extent, and the duty amount was remanded for re-adjudication only on the correctness of the calculation after hearing the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether interest was payable on the duty arising after withdrawal of warehousing facility when the duty was discharged by the date fixed in the Board's circular. (ii) Whether the duty quantification required reconsideration in view of the alleged arithmetical mistake.

Issue (i): Whether interest was payable on the duty arising after withdrawal of warehousing facility when the duty was discharged by the date fixed in the Board's circular.

Analysis: The duty payment was required to be made by 5 October 2004 in terms of the Board's circular. The Tribunal also noticed its earlier decision following the same circular. On that basis, if the appellants discharged the entire duty liability by the specified date, the demand for interest could not survive.

Conclusion: Interest was not payable if the entire duty liability had been discharged by 5 October 2004, and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty quantification required reconsideration in view of the alleged arithmetical mistake.

Analysis: The appellants had pointed out an alleged error in the computation and relied on their letters explaining the calculation. Since the adjudicating authority had not considered this aspect, the matter required a fresh examination only on the correctness of the duty amount.

Conclusion: The duty computation was remanded to the original authority for limited reconsideration after hearing the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The interest demand was set aside to the extent it depended on timely discharge of duty by the date fixed in the circular, while the duty quantification was sent back for limited re-adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a Board circular fixes a later date for discharge of duty following withdrawal of warehousing facility, no interest is payable if the duty is paid within that stipulated date.

---