2007 (9) TMI 506

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Consultant and T. Ramesh, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  Revenue has filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 32/2006 (H-IV) CE dated 31-8-2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals-II), Hyderabad. 2. The Respondents are manufacturers of M. S. Ignots and sponge iron, which are excisable. During the disputed period, they were working un....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....before this Bench, this Bench then passed Final Order dated 10-10-2005 according to which it was held that the respondents were entitled for the benefit of the Modvat credit. Consequently, the respondent's took the Cenvat credit of Rs. 15,84,287/- on 10-11-2005 and requested for payment of interest from the date of the refund claim till the date of their taking the credit. The lower authority reje....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Revenue, excess amount is only the balance of modvat credit available and it is not the actually duty paid by them. In respect of the adjustment of credits, according to the Revenue, Section 11BB would not be applicable and therefore, the respondents are not entitled for the interest allowed by the Commissioner (A). They have relied on various case-laws and according to the Revenue, the interpre....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hese circumstances, the respondent filed the refund claim even on 21-10-1999. This fact is also not in dispute. Since the respondent filed a refund claim on 21-10-1999 and claim was rejected at various levels and finally the appellant's stand was vindicated by the Tribunal's order dated 10-10-2005. On a very careful reading of the explanation to Section 11BB, it is very clear that the respondent i....