TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 349
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....des (DDT). On the date of manufacturing, the appellant has paid the duty provisionally at the applicable rate. 3. The appellant has written to the Ministry for the valuation of the goods. It is only on 24.3.2014, the Ministry has informed the valuation price for the difference. The duty was paid as per the provisional assessment. However, the final assessment was passed on 21.9.2015. The department has demanded the interest from the date of production of the goods for clearance of goods. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 4. With this background, we heard Shri Rajeev Aggarwal and Shri M R Sharma, learned Counsel for the parties. 5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of material available on record, it a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lity to pay interest on any amount payable to Central Government consequent to order for final assessment under Rule 7 sub-rule (3). We are in agreement with the assessee in the present case that the later part of sub-rule (4) is not attracted. The liability to pay interest on any amount payable to Central Government consequent to order for final assessment is not a situation to be found in the present case. It is not the argument of the Revenue that what was paid by the Assessee as differential duty and prior to finalizing of the assessment, is not correct, accurate or proper computation of the liability. Having found that the final assessment resulted in nothing due and payable to the Government, we do not find any justification then to r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... recover it, that the Hon'ble Supreme Court reached a conclusion that on price revision the Assessee was liable to pay interest on the differential duty. That was because he not only recovered the revised price but passed on the burden of the differential duty paid on the customer. It was not his later act but his prior act of raising supplementary invoices and, then, paying the differential duty which enabled the Revenue to recover interest and relying on the substantive provisions. That is how both the judgments should have been read. If the Tribunal's conclusion is upheld, the Revenue would face proceedings for recovery of interest on the entitlement to refund in cases covered by Rule 7(5) of the Rules. If the differential duty paid and ....