TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 38
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed against OIA-VAD-EXCUS-001-APP-441/13-14, dt.14/10/2013, passed by Commissioner, C.Ex. & S.Tax, Vadodara-I. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 27, 28, 31 & 39 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Appellants, during the period April 2007 to March 2009 manufactured and cleared th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, upheld the adjudication order and rejected the appeal. Hence, the present Appeal. 3. The learned Advocate Shri Willingdon Christian for the Appellant submitted that even though the differential duty was determined on recalculated assessable value and paid during the period 2007 to 2009, the demand for interest was issued to them in 2012. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lue adopting the actual data relevant for the period during which goods were cleared. It is also not in dispute that even though the differential duty was paid, the Appellant had not discharged the interest on the differential duty. It is the contention of the Appellant now before this forum is that the demand for interest since issued in 2012, hence barred by limitation. The lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct was that no limitation period was prescribed, therefore, proceedings for recovery could be initiated within a reasonable time. The ratio in the said case is distinguishable for the reason that payment of interest is to be made under Section 11A and, therefore, the period of limitation prescribed therein would equally apply as has been held by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kwality Ice Crea....