https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384063 Interest sought under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act on differential duty arising from supplementary invoices issued after retrospective price revision was held to be subject to the same limitation rules as recovery of the principal duty. The Tribunal applied Section 11A limitation to recovery of interest as well, and found the notices time-barred because they were issued beyond the normal period. In the absence of fraud, collusion, suppression, or intent to evade duty, the extended limitation period could not be invoked. The interest demand was therefore barred by limitation and the appeals succeeded on that ground. en-us Fri, 19 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Aug 2019 07:16:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384063 Interest sought under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act on differential duty arising from supplementary invoices issued after retrospective price revision was held to be subject to the same limitation rules as recovery of the principal duty. The Tribunal applied Section 11A limitation to recovery of interest as well, and found the notices time-barred because they were issued beyond the normal period. In the absence of fraud, collusion, suppression, or intent to evade duty, the extended limitation period could not be invoked. The interest demand was therefore barred by limitation and the appeals succeeded on that ground. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 19 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384063