https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353906 Interest demanded under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as recoverable even though the rule was later struck down, because no saving clause protected past cases. The absence of prior notice did not invalidate the demand, since it flowed automatically from the earlier order-in-original. However, the assessee was entitled to a clear breakup showing how the interest was quantified, particularly where the departmental figure differed materially from the assessee's computation and the original records were not produced. The demand was therefore not cancelled outright, but a fresh demand with computation details was required before recovery in accordance with law. en-us Thu, 12 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353906 Interest demanded under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as recoverable even though the rule was later struck down, because no saving clause protected past cases. The absence of prior notice did not invalidate the demand, since it flowed automatically from the earlier order-in-original. However, the assessee was entitled to a clear breakup showing how the interest was quantified, particularly where the departmental figure differed materially from the assessee's computation and the original records were not produced. The demand was therefore not cancelled outright, but a fresh demand with computation details was required before recovery in accordance with law. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 12 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353906