2011 (10) TMI 542

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. JUDGMENT This civil miscellaneous appeal, at the instance of the Revenue, was admitted on the following substantial question of law : "1. Whether the decision of the CESTAT which set aside the order No. 26/2006, dated 30-7-2006 of Commissioner, relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of "Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. v. UOI", which was based ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the substantial questions of law are as follows. The first respondent-assessee, who are the manufacturers of M.S. Ingots, defaulted in payment of the monthly instalments of duty. Hence, the assessee was directed to pay all the dues on or before 15-7-2005, failing which the assessee would not be allowed the benefit of Cenvat credit in terms of sub-rule (3A) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Chennai Bench ("CESTAT" in short) allowed the appeal by following the decision of the Bombay High Court in Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, 2005 (183) E.L.T. 351 (Bom.). Being aggrieved by the same, the Revenue has preferred this civil miscellaneous appeal. 4. We heard Mr. T. Chandrasekaran, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the appellant. Though the first respondent has bee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....accrued after the last date of the month for payment of duty in respect of the clearances relating to the month. By that rule, the assessee is not entitled to utilisation of the subsequently accrued Cenvat credit for the payment of earlier months default. Admittedly, the assessee has made such a claim. As the issue is covered under the provisions of Rule 8(3A) for the non-compliance of sub-rule (4....