9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthuvenkataraman, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Harish Kumar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M.V. Ravindaran, Member (J) (Oral)]. This appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No: 142/2008 (V-l)-C.E., dated 30-12-2008. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of fertilizers are also engaged in the production of Sulphur Bentonite used as fertilizers by the farmers. It is the contention of the revenue that the said product is excisable and coming to such a conclusion, they issued a show cause notice to the appellants for discharge of Excise duty. The appellants in order to avoid the interest liability, if any, arising on the Excise duty payable on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would took us through the Order-in-Appeal. It is his submission that the learned Commissioner (A) s order of adjustment of Cenvat credit wrongly availed and interest liability thereon to be set off against the refund claim, which of the amount paid through PLA is erroneous. It is his submission that they had discharged the duty liability on the final products during the period March, 2006 to October, 2006 by utilizing the Cenvat credit as well as paying amount through Account Current or PLA. It is his submission that they themselves had asked for refund, only of the amount of the duty paid by them through PLA/account current. He would submit that they have not availed the credit wrongly and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o October, 2006 from PLA only. It is undisputed that during the period March, 2006 to October, 2006, appellant has discharged the duty liability on Sulphur Bentonite under protest in pursuance to the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise dated 22-12-2005 holding their product as manufactured product. Consequent to the Final Order of this Bench holding such activity does not amount to manufacture, they claimed the refund of the amount paid through PLA. Once it is undisputed that during the relevant period March, 2006 to October, 2006 appellant had utilized the Cenvat credit for discharge of duty liability on Sulphur Bentonite, it is to be understood that the appellant had reversed the Cenvat credit which he has taken. Revenue s conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
