TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (2) TMI 36
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. It is the contention of the revenue that the said product is excisable and coming to such a conclusion, they issued a show cause notice to the appellants for discharge of Excise duty. The appellants in order to avoid the interest liability, if any, arising on the Excise duty payable on the said product for the period March 2006 to October 2006, paid the duty under protest and contested the order of the revenue classifying the product Suplhur Bentonite as a manufactured product. The assessee took the matter to the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide Final Order No.1740/2006 dated 13.10.2006 held that the said product Suplhur Bentonite was not a manufactured product and set aside that impugned order. Consequent to such an order in their favour,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as well as paying amount through Account Current or PLA. It is his submission that they themselves had asked for refund, only of the amount of the duty paid by them through PLA / account current. He would submit that they have not availed the credit wrongly and hence, there is no liability on them to reverse the same or the interest thereon as has been held by the Larger Bench in the case of HMT Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula - 2008 (232) ELT 217 (Tri.-LB). He would also rely upon the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ashok Enterprises Vs. CCE, Chennai - 2008 (221) ELT 586 (Tri.-Chennai) and also on the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CCE & C, Cochin Vs. Premier Tyres ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....during the relevant period March 2006 to October 2006 appellant had utilized the cenvat credit for discharge of duty liability on Suplhur Bentonite, it is to be understood that the appellant had reversed the cenvat credit which he has taken. Revenue s contention that the appellant had wrongly availed the cenvat credit is on wrong footing. It is undisputed that the duty liability was forced upon the appellant during the relevant period. If the appellant is liable to discharge the duty liability on the final product, then he is eligible to avail cenvat credit on the inputs utilized for the manufacture of such products. If this is undisputed, the credit availed by the appellant during the relevant period cannot be held as incorrect. If that be....