JUDGMENT 1. - This Central Excise Appeal is directed against the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short ‘CESTAT’) dated 25-10-2007. 2. The brief facts, as emerging on the face of record, are that the respondent-assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Optical Fibre Cable/Optical Fibre falling under sub-heading Number 8544.10/9001.90 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 3. It has been observed by the Assessing officer-adjudicating authority that during the course of scrutiny of the records for the period of December, 2002 to July, 2003, it was noticed that the assessee had cleared its product Optical Fibre Cable/Optical Fibre to M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.(in short ‘BSNL’) (A Government of India Undertaking) on the basis of provisional prices placed by BSNL on the terms and conditions as laid down as per purchase order and paid the duty accordingly. Subsequently, when final rates were approved by the BSNL, the assessee had raised supplementary invoices for differential assessable values and also paid differential duty accordingly. 4. However, it transpires that the respondent-assessee did not request the Assessing officer for allowing the clearances of goods on provisional basis as required under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued, as to why, as per the provision contained in Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, interest of Rs. 9,775/- on the differential duty for the period July, 2001 to June, 2002 may not be levied Rule 7(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 5. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued, as to why, as per the provision contained in Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, interest of Rs. 9,775/- on the differential duty for the period July, 2001 to June, 2002 may not be levied Rule 7(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 5. The assessee submitted an explanation in which it was submitted that sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 makes it clear that the interest payment arises only from the first day of the month succeeding the month for which such amount is determined and according to the assessee, it was to be determined from the date of finalisation of the provisional assessment and not the date of payment of final duty, it was submitted that neither interest nor penalty is leviable and accordingly, it was requested that the proceeding be dropped, however, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that strict compliance of the rules is required and that the assessee should have made clearances of goods on the provisional value by following the procedure laid down under Rule 7 but it was observed by the Assessing Officer that subsequently, the assessee has paid a differential duty when final rate was approved by the BSNL and accordingly, directed to levy interest amounting to Rs. 9,775/- under Rule 7(4). The Assessing Officer also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 6. Dissatisfied with the imposition of the interest as well as penalty, an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) was satisfied on the submission of the assessee that entire amount of Rs. 3,45,413,62/- was deposited by the assessee voluntarily much before the issuance of the show cause notice dated 13-10-2004 and he accepted the contention of the assessee that when the entire amount of duty has been paid before issuance of show cause notice, therefore, the penal provision cannot be invoked as such neither interest nor penalty can be levied. The Commissioner (Appeals) also relied upon certain authorities. Accordingly, he allowed the appeal of the assessee and both interest as well as penalty was held not sustainable. 7. Dissatisfied with the deletion of the interest and the penalty, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and ultimately the Tribunal also dismissed the appeal of the revenue upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 8. Mr. Vinay Mathur, ld. 7. Dissatisfied with the deletion of the interest and the penalty, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and ultimately the Tribunal also dismissed the appeal of the revenue upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 8. Mr. Vinay Mathur, ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that substantial question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. He would contend that under Rule 7, the assessee did not follow the procedure laid down under the Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and removed the goods on payment of duty determined on provisional value, it was required of the assessee to determine correct duty payable of excisable goods and ought to have been paid at the time of removable as provided under Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2003 and should have taken permission. 9. Subsequently, the assessee paid balance duty when final rate was approved by the BSNL and therefore, interest was certainly leviable under Rule 7(4). it was contended that the Tribunal in a summary manner has merely on basis of some orders of the Tribunal came to the said conclusion. He submitted that interest was leviable and correctly levied. 10. We have considered the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for the appellant and perused the order impugned, so also finding recorded by the Assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals). It would be appropriate to refer to Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002:- “(1) where the assessee is unable to determine the value of excisable goods or determine the rate of duty applicable thereon, he may request to Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, in writing giving reasons for payment of duty on provisional basis and the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, may order allowing payment of duty on provisional basis at such rate or on such value as may be specified by him. (2) The payment of duty on provisional basis may be allowed, if the assessee executes a bond in the form prescribed by notification by the Board with such surety or security in such amount as the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, deem fit, binding the assessee for payment of difference between the amount of duty as many be finally assessed and the amount of duty provisionally assessed. (3) The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise as the case may be shall pass order for final assessment as soon as may be, after the relevant information, as may be required for finalising the assessment, is available, but within a period not exceeding six months from the date of the communication of the order issued under sub-rule (1). Provided that the period specified in this sub rule may, on sufficient cause being shown and the reasons to be recorded in writing, be extended by the Commissioner of Central Excise for a further period not exceeding six months and by the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise for such further period as he may deem fit. (4) The assessee shall be liable to pay interest on any amount payable to Central Government consequent to order for final assessment under sub-rule (3) at the rate specified by the Central Government by notification issued under Section 11AA or Section 11AB of the Act from the first day of the month succeeding the month for which such amount is determined till the date of payment thereof. " 11. In our view, under sub-rule (4) the interest arises only from the first day of the month succeeding the month for which such amount is determined till the date of payment thereof and in our view, it is very clear and unambiguous that the interest liability arises only upon determination of the value or the duty by the adjudicating authority and only after determination this liability arises. In our view, merely because an application was not moved to the Assessing Officer and which the respondent-assessee did not move on such fact, no interest would be leviable nor penalty can be said to be leviable, though requirement of the Act/Rule needs to be fulfilled but in this particular case, it would be too technical to come to the said conclusion that the application was not moved by the assessee and it becomes fatal. 12. As observed herein above, this case is being decided on the facts found in the instant case and when there is a finding of fact not only by the commissioner (Appeals), but also by the Tribunal and on such finding of fact, substantial question of law cannot be said to arise for consideration of this Court. In fact even otherwise in the present appeal the amount involved is less then Rs. 12,000/- and is a meagre amount. Accordingly, for this reason also we do not find any merit in the present appeal. 13. Consequently, the DB Central Excise Appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******