JUDGMENT Hrishikesh Roy, J. 1. Heard Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Sarma, learned senior standing counsel for the Central Excise Department representing the Respondents. 2. The Petitioner's Factory is registered with the Central Excise Department as a manufacture of tea, bearing Regn. No. AABCRO236 PXMOO1 and they challenge the adjudication order dated 4th October, 2004 (Annexure-IX) of the Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise, whereby the demand of interest on delayed payment of additional duty of excise, has been conformed in the adjudicatory process. 3.1. Following the Finance Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2003 Act") i.e. No. 32/2003, additional duty of excise became leviable at the rate specified in the schedule and by the demand notice dated 27th November, 2003 issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Dibrugarh-1 Range (Annexure-IV), Rs.2,17,690/- (Rupees two lakhs seventeen thousands six hundred ninety) was demanded from the Petitioner as central excise duty for clearance made during 1st March, 2003 to 30th June,2003 (wrongly stated as 31st October, 2003). 3.2. The demanded excise duty was deposited by the Petitioner on 29th March, 2003. But alleging that there was delay in payment, a proceeding was initiated through the show cause notice dated 31st March, 2003 (Annexure-V) to recover interest at the rate of Rs.1000/- per day and maximum interest equivalent to the paid duty of Rs.2,17,690/- (Rupees two lakhs seventeen thousands six hundred ninety), was proposed to be recovered from the Petitioner. Eventually by the impugned adjudication order, demand of interest at the rate of Rs.1000/- per day upto the maximum limit, was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise. 4. Arguing for the Petitioner it is submitted by Mr. Sahewalla that the Petitioner does not dispute its liability to pay additional excise duty on manufacture of tea by virtue of Section 157 of the 2003 Act. However the learned Counsel contends that the interest on delayed payment charged at the rate of Rs.1000/- per day is impermissible, in view of the notification dated 12th May, 2000 issued under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. Mr. However the learned Counsel contends that the interest on delayed payment charged at the rate of Rs.1000/- per day is impermissible, in view of the notification dated 12th May, 2000 issued under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. Mr. B Sarma, the learned standing counsel by referring to the decision of Division Bench of this Court rendered on 30th June, 2005 in a batch of Writ Appeal including the Union of India v. Assam Brook Ltd. Writ Appeal No. 55/2005 submits that the liability of the Petitioner to pay additional excise duty in pursuant to the 2003 Act, is already settled by this Court. He further submits that as there was delay in depositing the excise duty, the Petitioner has been rightly fastened with interest liability for delayed payment under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 6.1. From the materials on record, it is clear that the duty payable on manufacture of tea during 1st March, 2003 to 30th June, 2003 was deposited by the Petitioner on 29th March, 2004. The Petitioner was asked to deposit the excise duty within 15 days of the demand notice dated 27th November, 2003. Section 11AA provides that if the demanded duty is not paid within 3 months from the date of "determination ", interest at the appropriate rate is required to be paid for such delayed payment. 6.2. According to the Notification No. 39/2000-CE(NT) dated 12th May, 2000 issued under Section11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the rate of interest is fixed at 24% per annum for the purpose of Section 11AA of the Act. The contents of the notification dated 12th May, 2000 is extracted herein below for ready reference: In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) and in super session of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 7/2000-Central Excise (N.T.) dated the 1st March, 2000 (G.S.R. 199(E), dated the 1st March, 2000), except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such super session, the Central Government hereby fixes the rate of interest at twenty-four per cent per annum for the purposes of the said section 7. The rate of chargeable interest is specified by the notification dated 12th May, 2000 for delayed payment and interest beyond 24% cannot be recovered under Section 11A. Furthermore, the interest is chargeable under Section 11AA only if the Assessee fails to pay duty, within 3 months from the date of "determination". Therefore, while deciding on the amount of interest payable for delay in duty payment, the adjudicating authority is required to firstly take into account as to when, the payable duty was determined and secondly the rigours of the C.E. Notification No. 39/2000 as interest cannot exceed 24% per annum, under the said notification dated 12th May, 2000. 8. But from the show cause notice dated 31st March, 2004 of the Superintendent, Central Excise, Dibrugarh-1 Range as well as the adjudication order dated 4th October, 2004 of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Dibrugarh it is apparent that interest at a much higher rate i.e. at Rs.1000/- per day was demanded and the maximum chargeable interest equivalent to the payable excise duty was confirmed against the Assessee. The said demand in my view is inconsistent with the provisions of Section 11AA and also the notification dated 12th May, 2000. 9. Having concluded thus, while upholding the Petitioner's liability to pay interest for delayed payment of excise duty for the period 1st March, 2003 to 30th June, 2003, the amount of interest payable is ordered to be re-determined by the competent Authority so that the same conform to the maximum rate of interest, specified by the Departmental Notification No. 39/2000 dated 12th May, 2000 and the provisions of Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is ordered accordingly. 10. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction without any order of cost.