9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. The appellants avail Cenvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of final products. With effect from 1-3-2003, as per the provisions of Rule 3(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, when the inputs on which Cenvat credit has been taken or removed as such from the factory, the manufacturer of the final products shall pay an amount equal to the credit availe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reason. He has demanded both the amounts in his order. Further he has demanded interest under Section 11AB also. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 16/2005, dated 23-2-2005 has upheld the order of the Original authority. The appellants have strongly challenged the findings of the lower authorities. 2. Shri M.S. Srinivasa, learned Advocate appeared for the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at is necessary on clearance of inputs as such. If more duty is paid, we fail to understand as to how the demand of duty on the excess duty paid can stand the test of reason and law. What is the motive in reversing the excess credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) has given the following reasons :- It only appears that the appellant decided to make use of the credit accumulated in their account and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the motives of the appellants and fasten the duty liability for paying more duty than necessary even though it was by way of Cenvat Credit and not through PLA. In our view, even though there is an infraction of the rule as excess duty has been paid, the demand would not survive. Hence, we set aside the impugned order with consequential relief. (Operative portion of the order has been pronounced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
