2017 (6) TMI 933

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al No.E/1115/2008) the appellant on the basis of their cost audit calculated the value on the basis of actual cost of production which was higher than the cost of production on which the appellant had calculated the duty liability. Therefore, the appellant suo moto paid the differential duty on the revised value. After payment of the differential duty, the Department raised the demand of interest on the appellant. Two show cause notices were issued on 15.05.2006 (In Appeal No.E/1113/2008) and 31.01.2007 (In Appeal No.E/1115/2008) demanding interest of Rs. 3,22,891/- and Rs. 10,37,782/- respectively and proposing penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules. Both the demands were confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority along with imposition....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at since it was a case of delayed payment of the duty, the interest was payable by the appellants. He relied upon the following case laws:- 1. CCE Vs. International Auto Ltd. 2010 (250) ELT 3(SC) 2. CCE Pune Vs SKF India Ltd. 2009 (239) ELT 385(SC) 3. SKH Auto Components Ltd. Vs. CCE Delhi-IV 2011 (274) ELT 273 (Tri. Del.). 4. Padmashri V.V. Patil SSK Ltd. Vs. CCE 2016 (335) ELT 196 (SC) 5. CCE & C, Aurangabad Vs. Padmashri V.V. Patil S.S.K. Ltd. 2007 (215) ELT 23 (Bom) 6. CCE Mumbai III Vs. Emco Ltd. 2015 (325) ELT A 104 (Bom.) 7. EMCO Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai 2011 (272) ELT 136 (Tri. Mum.) 8. CC Madras Vs. T.V.S. Whirpool Ltd. 2000 (119) ELT A 177 (SC) 9. CC Madr....