https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75337 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. en-us Fri, 08 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75337 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 08 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75337