https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328062 Differential central excise duty arising from finalisation of valuation under Rule 8 attracted interest because the assessable value depended on year-end cost data and the short-paid duty was later determined and discharged; delayed payment therefore carried mandatory interest under Section 11AB, and revenue neutrality did not displace that liability. Penalty under Rule 25 was not warranted because the short payment resulted from valuation finalisation rather than clandestine removal, suppression, or intent to evade duty, and the absence of mala fide or contumacious conduct meant the penal ingredients were not met. The common order was thus sustained on interest and relief was maintained on penalty. en-us Wed, 03 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328062 Differential central excise duty arising from finalisation of valuation under Rule 8 attracted interest because the assessable value depended on year-end cost data and the short-paid duty was later determined and discharged; delayed payment therefore carried mandatory interest under Section 11AB, and revenue neutrality did not displace that liability. Penalty under Rule 25 was not warranted because the short payment resulted from valuation finalisation rather than clandestine removal, suppression, or intent to evade duty, and the absence of mala fide or contumacious conduct meant the penal ingredients were not met. The common order was thus sustained on interest and relief was maintained on penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 03 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328062