https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390699 The Tribunal held that interest on the differential duty should be charged from the due date as per the Central Excise Rules, aligning with the Supreme Court's stance. The appellant's consistent practice of paying differential duty after finalizing the cost of manufacturing, even before audits, indicated no malafide intent or suppression of facts. The supply of goods within the same company entitled the consignee to Cenvat Credit, resulting in a revenue-neutral situation that precluded the invocation of the extended period. Consequently, the demand for the extended period was deemed unsustainable, leading to the allowance of the appeal involving the extended period demand. en-us Tue, 03 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Jan 2020 06:55:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390699 The Tribunal held that interest on the differential duty should be charged from the due date as per the Central Excise Rules, aligning with the Supreme Court's stance. The appellant's consistent practice of paying differential duty after finalizing the cost of manufacturing, even before audits, indicated no malafide intent or suppression of facts. The supply of goods within the same company entitled the consignee to Cenvat Credit, resulting in a revenue-neutral situation that precluded the invocation of the extended period. Consequently, the demand for the extended period was deemed unsustainable, leading to the allowance of the appeal involving the extended period demand. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 03 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390699