9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants paid the differential duty. Held that-dispute as to whether in determining liability to interest, bar of limitation applicable or not. Issue of bar of limitation not raised before original authority and before Commissioner (Appeals) impugned order holding recovery of interest with reference to date of clearance of goods and due date by which duty ought to be paid, set aside and matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants paid the differential duty. There is no dispute about the liability of the appellants to pay the differential duty. The original authority ordered recovery of interest with reference to date of clearance of the consignment and the due date by which the duty ought to have been paid. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the orders of the lower authority. 4. Learned Company Secretary, Shri Atu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the period of limitation that applies to a claim for the principal amount should also apply to the claim for interest thereon. We find no merit in the appeals and they are dismissed with cost. 5.1 Learned SDR submits that the issue regarding interest liability on price increase is no more res integra having been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Pune v. SKF Ltd. reported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pute about the differential duty payable due to price escalation. In fact the same stands paid. The dispute whether interest is liable to be paid also stands settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SKF Ltd. cited (supra). The dispute relates to whether in determining the liability to interest, the bar of limitation will apply or not. Both sides agree that the issue of bar of limitation was not rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
