https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46626 The Supreme Court's restitutionary order fixing interest at 12% per annum governed recovery, and the Department could not substitute a higher 20% rate under Section 11AA or Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Section 11AA was inapplicable because there was no determination of duty under Section 11A(2) and no proper basis for an erroneous-refund demand. Recovery had to conform to the binding judicial direction, and the higher statutory rate was rejected as conflicting with that order. en-us Tue, 11 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:19:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46626 The Supreme Court's restitutionary order fixing interest at 12% per annum governed recovery, and the Department could not substitute a higher 20% rate under Section 11AA or Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Section 11AA was inapplicable because there was no determination of duty under Section 11A(2) and no proper basis for an erroneous-refund demand. Recovery had to conform to the binding judicial direction, and the higher statutory rate was rejected as conflicting with that order. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 11 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46626