https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77454 The case involved appeals by two companies regarding the payment of differential duty and interest due to price escalation in excisable goods supplied under contract. The liability for interest was upheld by the original authority and Commissioner (Appeals), citing precedent. The appellants argued for limitation on the demand for interest, but the Supreme Court dismissed the Department's appeal, affirming that the same limitation period as for duty should apply to interest. The issue of the bar of limitation in determining liability to interest was raised, leading the Tribunal to remand the matter for further consideration on this aspect. en-us Thu, 14 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77454 The case involved appeals by two companies regarding the payment of differential duty and interest due to price escalation in excisable goods supplied under contract. The liability for interest was upheld by the original authority and Commissioner (Appeals), citing precedent. The appellants argued for limitation on the demand for interest, but the Supreme Court dismissed the Department's appeal, affirming that the same limitation period as for duty should apply to interest. The issue of the bar of limitation in determining liability to interest was raised, leading the Tribunal to remand the matter for further consideration on this aspect. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 14 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77454