Sanjib Banerjee, J. - (1.) No question of any significance is raised by the Excise Authorities in the proposed appeal.
(2.) A certain quantum of duty was demanded by an order of adjudication which the assessee paid under protest. The assessee's appeal against the order of adjudication succeeded and the additional duty paid was refunded to the assessee. The department carried an appeal to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court restored the adjudication order by giving benefit of a few notifications to the assessee. Within three months of such determination by the Supreme Court, the assessee paid the deficit duty. Such position is not in dispute and is recorded in the order impugned dated February 15, 2016 passed by the Appellate Tribunal [2016 (337) E.L.T. 124 (Tribunal)].
(3.) An order of adjudication was subsequently served on the assessee on account of interest. The assessee contested the same and failed before the appellate authority. Before the Appellate Tribunal, it was noticed that no steps had been taken by the Department under Section 11A of the Act. This is the finding on facts of the Appellate Tribunal that cannot be interfered with in this limited jurisdiction and, in any event, the Department cannot demonstrate to the contrary.;