Interest on delayed duty payment for removal of inputs or capital goods as such was held not chargeable under the notification framework.

Interest on delayed duty payment for removal of inputs or capital goods as such was held not chargeable where the Commissioner (Appeals) correctly construed Notification No. 13/2003-C.E. (N.T.) and the deletion of the words relating to the date of removal did not make the order erroneous. The Tribunal also relied on its earlier view that monthly payment of duty was permissible for such removals from the factory. On that basis, the revenue's challenge to denial of interest failed and the assessee's position was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether interest was chargeable on delayed payment of duty arising on removal of inputs or capital goods as such, in the light of Notification No. 13/2003-C.E. (N.T.) dated 01.03.2003 and the deletion of the words indicating the date of removal.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly construed the notification and that the deletion relied upon did not render the order erroneous. It further noted that the issue stood covered by an earlier Tribunal decision holding that monthly payment of duty was permissible in respect of removal of cenvatable inputs or capital goods as such from the factory. On that basis, the revenue's challenge to denial of interest failed.

Conclusion: Interest was not chargeable on the facts of the case and the assessee's position was upheld.

---