2007 (6) TMI 539 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Modvat credit taken against original copies of invoices.
2. Entitlement to interest on excise duty refunded for exported goods.

Modvat credit issue:
The first issue in the case pertains to Modvat credit taken against original copies of invoices prior to a specified date. The revenue objected to the credit taken against original copies instead of duplicate copies. The appellant argued that the issue was settled by a judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in a previous case involving the same assessee. The appellant also mentioned that the duplicate copies were unavailable as they were taken by revenue authorities during a search operation. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant based on previous decisions.

Interest entitlement issue:
The second issue revolved around the date from which the appellant was entitled to interest on the excise duty refunded for exported goods. The appellant filed the claim on a certain date, but the amount was paid much later. The appellant contended that interest should be calculated from the date of filing the claim. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision in the case of Voltas Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad-II to support the appellant's claim for interest from the date of filing the claim. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on this issue as well.

Cenvat credit and interest adjustment:
The Tribunal also referred to Rule 57A and Rule 57G of the Rules regarding Cenvat credit. It highlighted the provisions allowing manufacturers to take credit based on original invoices under specific circumstances. Additionally, the Tribunal discussed the legal provisions related to the adjustment of refund amounts against pending demands, emphasizing that such adjustments should only occur when demands have reached finality. The Tribunal concluded that arbitrary adjustments by revenue authorities do not impact the assessee's entitlement to interest on delayed refund claims. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and both appeals were allowed in favor of the appellant.