2019 (5) TMI 1179

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....beling of automobiles parts as amounted to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f)(iii) of Central Excise Act, 1944 w.e.f 01.06.2006 for the period June 2006 to April 2007 the appellants have paid duty along with interest. The appellants contended that they had a credit on the goods lying in stock as on 01.06.2006 and they are eligible to pay the applicable duty through CENVAT also. Therefore, they have ended up paying more interest and accordingly filed a refund claim of Rs. 62,36,018/- which was rejected by Order-in-Original No.24-R/2008-09 dated 27.06.2008 by Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that interest is payable on the balance portion of the duty and not on the entire duty as held in the followi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Rs. 74,61,293/- and are entitled for refund of Rs. 62,36,018/- as there was huge stock of materials lying in stock as on 01.06.2006 the credit on which is available to them therefore the duty paid by them in cash should only be reckoned for the purpose of calculating interest as this is the duty which is actually not paid. Further, we find that the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., S.T. & Cus., Cochin v. Fact Ltd. [2017 (355) ELT 55 (Ker.)] has observed in Para 5 as follows: "5.When this appeal came up before us for consideration today, learned counsel appearing on both sides submitted that the issue raised is covered against the respondent and in favour of the appellant by the decision of the Ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as available during the whole period of default to offset the entire demand has to be gone into by the original authority. The Division Bench also held that if the entire demand cannot be met, interest need be paid only on the differential amount. In the light of the binding decision of this Court, we are of the opinion that notwithstanding the fact that the appellant is entitled to succeed and Annexure A4 and A6 orders passed by the appellate authority and the Tribunal are liable to be set aside, the matter should go back to the original authority for the limited purpose of deciding the question whether utilizable input credit was available during the period from March, 2000 to November, 2002. Needless to say, if after such enquiry it is f....