Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of recovery notice dated 16-1-2008 (Annexure P-9) with regard to liability of the petitioner to pay interest on delayed payment of Central Excise Duty. 2. The petitioner manufactures spun yarn and on the allegation that it mis-stated about the raw material used in manufacturing goods, demand of duty under the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 was raised vide order dated 9-12-1992 (Annexure P-1). According to the Department, the petitioner was manufacturing man-made fibre and not spun yarn. The petitioner did not pay the amount and had the benefit of stay in its favour till 16-2-2006 when the matter was disposed of by the Honble Supreme Court. After this order, vide letter dated 23-11-2007 (Annexure P-5), Superintendent, Central Excise Range called upon the petitioner to deposit the amount of duty with interest. The petitioner deposited the amount of duty on 29-11-2007 but did not pay interest. The department vide letter dated 4-12-2007 (Annexure P-6) again asked the petitioner to pay interest. The petitioner contested the said demand and finally vide impugned notice Annexure P-9, certificate of the amount of interest due was issued under the provisions of Customs (Attachment of Property of Defaulters for Recovery of Customs Dues) Rules, 1995. The petitioner deposited a part of the amount under protest and challenged the impugned notice in this petition. 3. Contention raised in the petition is that there was no demand of interest in the Order-in-Original (Annexure P- 1), nor the demand of interest was raised before the Tribunal. The respondent, for the first time, raised demand of interest in the year 2007. Reliance has been placed on judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Trade Tax, Lucknow v. Kanhai Ram Thekedar - 2005 (185) E.L.T. 3. It was also submitted that the assessment period involved is 1983-84 and there was no provision for interest. Provisions for interest, for the first time, were inserted in the year 1995 by way of Section 11AA, which could not have any retrospective effect. According to Rule 8(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 , w.e.f. 1-3-2002, liability of interest to be paid by the assessee shall not exceed the amount of duty which had not been paid by due date. 4. According to Rule 8(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 , w.e.f. 1-3-2002, liability of interest to be paid by the assessee shall not exceed the amount of duty which had not been paid by due date. 4. In the reply filed, prayer of the petitioner was contested and it is submitted that question of interest arose only after the petitioner did not pay the dues as per order dated 9-12-1992. Claim for interest has been made as per statutory provision, particularly when on account of stay in favour of the petitioner, demand of duty could not be enforced earlier. At the time when order dated 9-12-1992 was passed, there was no statutory provision for interest and therefore, condition for demand of interest could not have been mentioned at the time of passing order dated 9- 12-1992. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon Rule 8(3) and (4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 , which, it is pointed out, ceased to operate from 1-4-2005, submitted that for the period from 1-3-2002 to 1-4-2005, the petitioner could not be required to pay interest in excess of duty amount. Apart from this contention, relying upon judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Kanhai Rams case (supra), it is submitted that in absence of demand of interest being mentioned in the Order-in-Original, the same could not be raised subsequently after a long time. Reliance was also placed on the judgment dated 26-3-2008 of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shree Rajasthan Texchem Ltd. v. Union of India and others - C.E.A. No. 2 of 2005 [2008 (229) E.L.T. 50 (Raj.)], wherein interest was required to be paid after a particular day and judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. Union of India - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 18 (S.C.) wherein rate of interest was reduced to 12% per annum in the facts of that case. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents distinguished, the judgments relied on and submitted that the petitioner having not made the payment after the passing of the order dated 9-12-1992 and there being stay, the respondents could not recover the duty amount and the respondents had statutory right with regard to interest under Section 11AA. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents distinguished, the judgments relied on and submitted that the petitioner having not made the payment after the passing of the order dated 9-12-1992 and there being stay, the respondents could not recover the duty amount and the respondents had statutory right with regard to interest under Section 11AA. 8. We find that under Section 11AA of the Act, the petitioner is under statutory obligation to pay interest at the statutory rate. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner in Kanhai Rams case (supra) is distinguishable. Therein, there was no stay after the passing of the order and the department failed to take steps to recover. The judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shree Rajasthan Texchem (supra) and the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Star Paper Mills (supra), are on different situation, on account of order of Honble Supreme Court and cannot be relied upon as a precedent in the present case. 9. Coming to the last submission, we find that under Rule 8(3) of the Central Excise Rules, the liability of the petitioner was confined to payment of interest equal to the duty amount for the relevant period when rule applied. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to show how the said Rule was not applicable. 10. Accordingly, we allow this petition to the extent that the petitioner cannot be required to pay interest in excess of demand of duty for the period from 1-3-2002 to 1-4-2005 and for the said period, the interest will be confined to the amount equal to the amount of duty. For the rest of the period, notice of recovery is upheld. 11. The petition is disposed of.