TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 918
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....updt (AR) for respondent Per: Ramesh Nair 1. The issue involved in the present case is that whether the appellant is liable to pay interest in respect of duty paid during the period of provisional assessment and the assessment is finalized subsequently. 2. Ms.Anjali Hirawat, Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the issue is no longer res integra as this issue has bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....perintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterate the findings in the impugned order. 4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides. We find that the issue is no longer res integra, as the same has been decided in various judgements cited by the Ld. Counsel. Therefore, we need not to re-examine the identical legal issue involved in the present case. In the case of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7(4) it is clear that the appellant could not be held liable to pay the interest if the differential duty and the duty amount have been paid prior to the final assessment as given in the table in the memo of appeal. 3. Subject to the factual verification by the concerned Commissionerate that the duty and the differential duty have been paid prior to the final assessment, the appeal of the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...." 3. Perusal of the order of the CESTAT [2007 (209) E.L.T. 280 (Tribunal)] shows that in the present case, differential duty was paid prior to the date of final assessment. Interest under Rule 7(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is payable from the first date of the month succeeding the month for which such amount is determined by the final assessment till the date of payment. Since different....