2011 (1) TMI 1016

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, for the respondent   Heard both sides.   2. Revenue is in appeal against the Orders-in-Appeal No: 32/2008(M-IV), 77 & 78/2008 (P) dated 18/08/2008 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the adjudicating authority's order-in-original No.9/2007 dated 28/06/2007 confirming the duty demand with interest.   3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ue is that there is no dispute that the respondents were not eligible for the CENVAT credit in dispute. The respondents have not only taken the credit but they availed it also. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable in law and the same should be set aside and the adjudicating authority's order be restored.   5. The contention of the respondent is that they di....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s contention that the interest liability would arise from the date of wrong utilisation of credit in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd. (supra). In the instant case, interest has been calculated from the date of credit taken. Therefore, the quantum of interest has to be calculated from the date ....