2010 (8) TMI 722

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and are being disposed of by this common order.   2. In both these matters, the appellants have been directed to pay interest in relation to Cenvat credit wrongly availed by the appellants.   3. As far as appeal No. 350/2010 is concerned, the case of the Department is that the appellants wrongly availed the Cenvat credit during the period October, 2004 to March, 2005 in the sense that the Cenvat credit of 100% of the duty paid on the capital goods was sought to be availed in contravention of the provisions of section 4(2)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the same was subsequently reversed but failed to deposit the interest on the delayed reversal. The factum of availment of 100% of Cenvat credit of duty paid on capit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t a pari materia with the provisions of law comprised under Rule 14 to Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.   7. The Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provides that "where Cenvat credit has been taken or utilised wrongly or has been erroneously refunded, the same along with interest shall be recovered from the manufacturer or the provider of the output service and the provisions of sections 11A and 11AB of the Excise Act or sections 73 and 75 of the Finance Act, shall apply mutatis mutandis for effecting such recoveries". As rightly pointed out by the learned SDR that the Rule nowhere makes difference between the credit which was wrongly availed and the one which was wrongly utilised as far as the liability to pay interest thereon is c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....les. The decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court is essentially with reference to Rule 57-I. The same cannot be applied to the cases arising under Rule 14 as rightly observed by the Board in the Circular dated 3rd September, 2009.   10. Dismissal of the SLP would not amount to confirmation of the decision of the Tribunal. The law in that regard is well settled by the Apex Court in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala 2001 (129) ELT 11. In the matter in hand, undisputedly, the credit was wrongly availed and it was reversed on being pointed out by the Audit. Being so, taking into consideration the provisions of Rule 14 of the said Rules merely because it remained unutilised till the last date of financial year in which it was wrongly availe....