TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (9) TMI 46
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar. The Respondents are manufactures of excisable goods falling under Chapter 11, 19, 28, 34 and 48 of the Central Excise tariff Act 1985, for which they have Central Excise Registration. Beside this, they are also providing management Consultant Service and IPR services for which they have acquired service tax registration under Service Tax Rules, 1994. The Respondent during the period from October 2004 to September 2005, paid service tax amounting to Rs. 12,36,670/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Thirty Six Thousand Six Hundred Seventy) on Management Consultancy service IPR service provided by them. Though this service tax was paid by the Respondent as service provider on the output service provided by them, they took its Cenvat credit during ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st the Assistant Commissioner s order, the CCE (Appeals) vide the impugned order-in-appeal No. 861/CE/JAL/2008 dated 22/12/2008, however, set aside the entire demand and penalty. The interest demand was set aside relying upon Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment in the case of CCE, Delhi III vs. Maruti Udyog Limited reported in 2007 (214) E.L.T. 173 (P & H). It is against this order of the Commissioner (Appeal) that the present appeal has been filed by the Revenue. 2. Heard both the sides. 2.1 Shri S. Gautam, the learned Counsel for the Department assailed the impugned order reiterating the grounds of appeal. He pleaded that the Assistant Commissioner (Appeal) s order setting aside the Cenvat credit demand of Rs. 91,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; III vs. Maruti Udyog Limited (supra),wherein Hon'ble High Court has held that the assessee are not liable to pay interest as the credit was taken as entry in the Modvat record and had not been utilized. This judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd. reported in 2007 (214) E.L.T. A50 (S.C.). He emphasized that through out the period, the respondent has sufficient unutilized balance of credit and in November 2005, out of total credit of Rs. 12,36,670/- wrongly taken, only Rs. 91,000/- has been utilized and the balance amount was lying unutilized in the Cenvat credit account. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions from both the side....