2006 (9) TMI 65

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....peared for the appellants and Shri K.S. Reddy, learned JDR appeared for the Revenue. 3.The learned Advocate urged the following points :- (i) The learned Advocate narrated the circumstances leading to the present appeal. The appellants were availing input credit for payment of duty on final products. However, they wanted to avail the benefit of Notification No. 30/2004 dated 9-7-2004, thereby the final products could be cleared free of duty. The exemption is subject to reversal of Cenvat credit on the inputs and the inputs contained in the final products as on 9-7-2004. The case of the Revenue is that the reversal was effected only on 14-10-2004 after a lapse of 98 days. Hence they are liable for payment of interest and also imposition of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is totally incorrect. (iii)The Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding with respect to the contentions that the appellants had not contravened the provisions of Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rule, 2002 (now Rule 14) which provides for recovery of credit wrongly availed or utilized. There has been no wrong availment or utilization of credit as far as the appellant is concerned. The credit availed and utilized prior to 9-7-2004 was done in the prescribed manner and after following necessary procedure. Hence, there is no justification in demanding interest which can only be demanded for wrong availment or utilization of credit. (iv) The Commissioner has not given any finding whatsoever in the impugned order regarding the penalty of Rs. 5....