2009 (9) TMI 491

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ds used in the manufacture of final products. The respondents are clearing the goods for home consumption as well as for export. The respondents are availing the exemption as applicable "clearances made to STP/EHTP/100% EOU and Research Institutions, Colleges and Universities. This case relates to the clearances made without payment of excise duty to the institutions by availing exemption under Notification No. 10/97-CE. dated 1-3-1997. This sum was payable under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The respondents had taken the Cenvat credit on all theft inputs and capital goods. The utilisation of Cenvat while clearing the exempted goods by a unit manufacturing both exempted and dutiable goods and taking Cenvat credit on all inp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Aggrieved from the same, the Revenue is before me. 3. Shri SM. Vaidya, the ld. JDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that the respondents intentionally had not paid the 10% of the value of the goods cleared by them, during the period May, 2005 to February, 2006 and suppressed the same from the department. Hence, the respondent is liable to pay equivalent amount of penalty under Section I With regard to the interest, he submitted that the respondents are liable to pay the interest on the duty demand confirmed and to support his contention he placed reliance on CCE, Pune v. SKF India Ltd., 2009 (239) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.) = 2009-TIOL-82-SC-CX. wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that interest is leviable on delayed or deferred pa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....upra), the respondent is not liable to pay interest. 7. Heard 8. On careful examination of the submissions made by both the parties, I am of the opinion that there was no intention of the respondent to evade duty by misstatement or wilful suppression of the facts as the respondent was availing the benefit of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Orissa Extrusions (supra) and after the decision of the Amrit Paper (supra), he immediately paid the duty. 9. The contention of the ld. JDR that the interest is leviable or delayed or deferred payment of duty for whatsoever reasons. In fact in this case neither there was any delay or deferment of payment as the respondent was availing the benefit of the Apex Court's decision in the ....