https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445077 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal by remand, holding that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked for interest demand on differential duty. The appellant deposited duty on supplementary invoices when issued and paid disputed interest under protest. The Tribunal found no suppression of facts or intent to evade duty, citing divergent views on interest liability during the relevant period. Following precedents in Super Threading India and KEC International cases, the Tribunal set aside the extended period demand and remanded the matter to original authority for re-quantification within normal limitation period, directing refund of excess amounts deposited. en-us Fri, 27 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 Oct 2023 09:54:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445077 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal by remand, holding that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked for interest demand on differential duty. The appellant deposited duty on supplementary invoices when issued and paid disputed interest under protest. The Tribunal found no suppression of facts or intent to evade duty, citing divergent views on interest liability during the relevant period. Following precedents in Super Threading India and KEC International cases, the Tribunal set aside the extended period demand and remanded the matter to original authority for re-quantification within normal limitation period, directing refund of excess amounts deposited. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 27 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445077