https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4157 Interest was not leviable on differential duty arising from subsequent price revision and supplementary invoices, because the duty shortfall did not stem from default in the prescribed fortnightly payment of duty. The Tribunal applied the view that Rule 173G(1)(d) of the Central Excise Rules governs delayed payment of duty within the regular payment cycle, not later duty arising only after an enhanced price is agreed. On that basis, only the differential duty was payable and no interest could be charged on the revised amount, with the issue decided in favour of the assessee. en-us Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4157 Interest was not leviable on differential duty arising from subsequent price revision and supplementary invoices, because the duty shortfall did not stem from default in the prescribed fortnightly payment of duty. The Tribunal applied the view that Rule 173G(1)(d) of the Central Excise Rules governs delayed payment of duty within the regular payment cycle, not later duty arising only after an enhanced price is agreed. On that basis, only the differential duty was payable and no interest could be charged on the revised amount, with the issue decided in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4157