2008 (10) TMI 220

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....payment of an amount equal to the credit availed. In respect of the clearances made, the appellants reversed the appropriate credit on the last day of the month instead of at the time of clearance. The Commissioner (A) found that sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, required that when credit availed inputs were removed as such from the factory, the manufacturer of the final products should pay an amount equal to the credit availed on such inputs. He found that there was delay in reversing/paying such credit and accordingly held that the demand of interest was appropriate. He vacated the demand made by the original authority on the basis that his predecessor had held in Order-in-Appeal No. 1007, dated 9-9-03 in the case of Ky....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ee. The appeal therefore was not sustainable. 4. The ld. SDR submits that interest could be demanded without issue of a show cause notice. Interest could be recovered by the operation of law. He relies on a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in CCE & C, Aurangabad v. Padmashri V.V. Patil S.S.K. Ltd., reported in 2007 (215) E.L.T. 23 (Bom.), wherein it was held that even if no notice was issued interest was liable to be paid for delay in payment of duty. He also submits a copy of a judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in CCE v. I.T.C. Ltd., reported in 2008 (221) E.L.T. 331 (Kar.), wherein it was held that the Committee of Commissioners filing the appeal instead of an officer authorized by the Committee filing the 'appeal was....