2008 (7) TMI 650

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e price. Subsequently they found that they were not liable to pay CST for the impugned clearances. Accordingly they worked out the duty due on account of wrong abatement of CST and paid an amount of Rs. 2,46,313/-on 3-2-2004. A Show Cause Notice was issued by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner disposing which he confirmed a demand of interest of Rs. 53,345/- on the differential duty (Rs. 2,46,313/-) for the period of delay from the respective successive months of clearances of the impugned goods. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) vacated the demand of interest. In taking the decision, he followed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore-III. In the appeal filed by th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rom their customers. The differential duty was due at that time i.e. when the revised rates applicable with retrospective effect were learnt by the Assessee, which was much after the clearance of the goods and therefore, question of payment of interest does not arise as the duty was paid as soon as it was learnt that it was payable. Finding that provisions of Section 11A(2) and 11A(2B) were not applicable as the situation occurred in the instant case was quite different, Section 11AB(1) was not at all applicable, and therefore, the Assessee was not required to pay interest." 4.1 In the instant case, the assessee short paid the duty due and made good the short payment when they came to know that they had computed the duty due during th....