<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2017 (1) TMI 416 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337336</link>
    <description>Statutory interest attaches to delayed payment of central excise duty where the differential duty becomes payable after valuation adjustment under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The admitted delay in duty payment brought the assessee within the interest provision, and recovery of interest was treated as a direct consequence of the duty liability without requiring separate adjudication. The plea that limitation barred recovery of the interest was rejected because limitation does not apply to recovery of statutory interest. The cited decisions were distinguished on different facts involving sale and supplementary invoices, leaving the interest demand intact.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2018 15:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454493" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 416 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337336</link>
      <description>Statutory interest attaches to delayed payment of central excise duty where the differential duty becomes payable after valuation adjustment under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The admitted delay in duty payment brought the assessee within the interest provision, and recovery of interest was treated as a direct consequence of the duty liability without requiring separate adjudication. The plea that limitation barred recovery of the interest was rejected because limitation does not apply to recovery of statutory interest. The cited decisions were distinguished on different facts involving sale and supplementary invoices, leaving the interest demand intact.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337336</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>