2008 (1) TMI 281

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... - The brief facts of the case are that the appellant had cleared the goods to their sister unit at a value which was determined by them by adding their profit margin. On being told that they are liable to pay duty @ 115% of the cost price as provided under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rule, they deposited differential duty amounting to Rs. 19 lakhs for the period 01 July 2000 to 15th July 2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o Rs. 8,00,000/-. He is limiting his appeal to its liability to pay interest which has been imposed on it by the Commissioner (Appeals). It is his submission that interest was demanded from them by a separate show cause notice which was adjudicated by the Jt. Commissioner who had dropped the demand of interest. Commissioner (Appeals) has still chosen to confirm interest saying that the interest de .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... has been filed. Commissioner (Appeals) has therefrom clearly gone beyond the issue to be decided by him in demanding interest on the delayed payment which is totally extraneous issue. The subject matter before me is the appellant's refund claim and not the demand of interest by the Revenue. In view of this I set aside the demand of interest ordered by Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal is accordi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X