https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336812 Where the department was already aware of the price revision and supplementary billing, an interest demand on delayed payment of differential duty had to be raised within the normal period; a demand issued beyond that period was time-barred and unsustainable. Penalty under Rule 25 read with Section 11AC could not be imposed because no fraud, suppression of facts, collusion or wilful misstatement was established. Accordingly, both the interest demand and the penalty were set aside. en-us Fri, 11 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Jan 2018 17:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336812 Where the department was already aware of the price revision and supplementary billing, an interest demand on delayed payment of differential duty had to be raised within the normal period; a demand issued beyond that period was time-barred and unsustainable. Penalty under Rule 25 read with Section 11AC could not be imposed because no fraud, suppression of facts, collusion or wilful misstatement was established. Accordingly, both the interest demand and the penalty were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336812