https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154766 CESTAT Mumbai considered whether interest on differential excise duty was chargeable under the pre-amendment and post-amendment regimes. It held that no interest was payable for duty relatable to the period up to 10-5-2001 under Section 11AA, while interest applied under Section 11AB only to the portion attributable to 11-5-2001 onwards, running from the due date until payment. On penalty, undervaluation was treated as a Rule 173Q breach, so penalty was justified in principle, but it was reduced because the assessee paid the differential duty after adjudication and no mala fide intent was found. en-us Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 May 2017 09:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154766 CESTAT Mumbai considered whether interest on differential excise duty was chargeable under the pre-amendment and post-amendment regimes. It held that no interest was payable for duty relatable to the period up to 10-5-2001 under Section 11AA, while interest applied under Section 11AB only to the portion attributable to 11-5-2001 onwards, running from the due date until payment. On penalty, undervaluation was treated as a Rule 173Q breach, so penalty was justified in principle, but it was reduced because the assessee paid the differential duty after adjudication and no mala fide intent was found. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154766