9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is appeal filed by the Revenue a short intrinsic question of law is involved as such after admitting the appeal, the point involved in it is considered. 3. The Revenue is in appeal aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai who has set aside the Order-in-Original levying interest amount of Rs. 24,189/- and penalty of Rs. 8,000/- allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. The case of the department is that the assessee had availed Cenvat credit on inputs/capital goods and cleared the said inputs/capital goods as such and had not paid the duty at the time of removal as required under the provisions of Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 but debited the duty on monthly basis in terms of Rule 8 of Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e) and such removal shall be made under cover of an invoice referred to in Rule 7. After substitution of the sub-rule vide Notification 13/2003-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-2003, the words on the date of such removal . as the case may be were deleted. The effect of the change was that after 1-3-2003 the inputs/capital goods could not be re-assessed to duty and only an amount equal to the credit taken was required to be paid. But nowhere the sub-rule lays down the time of such payment to be at the time of clearance. The interest was demanded under Section 11AB of the Act. The show cause notice worked out the interest from the date of clearance to the date of payment. However, under the said section interest is payable from the first date o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the same date when the goods are removed. But the above referred notification specifically deleting the words on the date of such removal .. as the case may be and consequently there is no specific date of payment of duty remains in the aforesaid clause. 8. The assessee in the instant was having the facility of payment of duty on monthly basis. It can be said that there is no delay in payment of duty. The interpretation as sought by the learned JDR cannot be made applicable when the position of law is clear and vivid. This position has been supported by the following decisions in the case KLRF Textiles v. CCE, Tirunelveli - 2005 (188) E.L.T. 169 (Tri.-Chennai) and Grasim Industries Limited v. CCE, Indore - 2003 (155) E.L.T. 200 (Tri. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
