N. Kumar, J.— These two appeals are by the revenue challenging the order of the Tribunal which set aside the order of the Appellate Authority relating to appropriation of interest of Rs. 24,415/- in one case and in another case on differential duty of Rs. 48,72,582/-.

2. M/s. J.K. Industries Limited-the Respondent has two plants - Vikrant Tyres - Plant I at Mysore and Truck Radial Plant-II at Hebbal Industrial Area, Metagalli, Mysore. They requested for provisional assessment in respect of clearances effected to their depots for effecting further sales from 1.7.2000 onwards. Based on the request of the Respondents, provisional assessment orders were passed by the department in respect of the financial year 2002-03 in respect of both the plants. At the time of ordering the provisional assessment, various abatements that are covered under the provisional assessment, the mode of computation of value was not enumerated. Therefore particulars were called for from the Respondents. Accordingly, the Respondents informed that they are claiming abatement under various heads. Consequent to the order of provisional assessments, the Respondents were required to furnish the requisite bond and security in time. They did not comply with the same. Therefore, they were issued a show cause notice proposing to re-determine the transaction value and to recover the consequential differential duty. Thereafter, the final assessment orders were passed on 4.3.2005 and 7.3.2005. In the said order it was held that interest involved is required to be paid by the Respondent-Assessee in accordance with Rule 7(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and accordingly a sum of Rs. 24,415/- was claimed as interest in respect of plant-I. In respect of plant-II it was held interest is payable by the Assessee in terms of Rule 7(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AA and 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944 on the short paid duty of Rs. 48,72.582/-.

3. The Assessee aggrieved by the said order preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals. He upheld the order of the assessing authority. Aggrieved by the same, the Assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal by the impugned order, following the judgment in Mseb Pole Factory vs. CCE, 2005 (187) ELT 209 (Tri. Mumbai) held that the interest provision would be applicable after the expiry of the period of one month from the date when the amount is determined, i.e., when the final order of assessment is passed and, therefore, they allowed the appeal and upheld the Assessee's contention. In passing the said order, the Tribunal did not consider the claim of the Assessee regarding abatement, which had been negatived. Therefore, an application was filed for rectification of the said order. The said application was rejected in view of the judgment of this Court that the application was not disposed off within six months from the date of the order of the Tribunal in terms of Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act. Now the matter stands remitted to the Tribunal for consideration of the rectification application afresh and it is pending consideration.

5. This Court admitted these two appeals to consider the following substantial question of law:

(1) Whether the tribunal was right in interpreting and holding that the interest would be applicable after expiry of the period of one month from the date when the amount is determined in terms of the provisions of Rule 7(4) of Central Excise Rules, 2002?

(2) Whether the tribunal was right in holding that the interest is payable from the first day of the month succeeding the month for which such amount is determined as per Rule 7(4) of Central Excise Rules. 2002?

6. The learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue assailing the impugned order contended that as is clear from Rule 7(4), the liability to pay interest consequent to the order for final assessment under Sub-rule (3) is to be calculated from the first day of the month succeeding the month fo