2018 (12) TMI 1922

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... asimhan & Shri Hrishikesh Jha, Advocates. For the Respondent : Shri Gyandendra Kr. Tripathi, Asstt. Commissioner (AR). Per: Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein interest on delayed refund has been rejected by the authorities bellow. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturer of 'Tractors'. Vide Notification No.23/2004-CE dated .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t to Notification No.23/2004-CE on 09.07.2004. Thereafter, appellant filed refund claim of amount into claim paid in 2007 under protest but the refund of interest of delayed payment was not given to the appellant. Against the said order, appellants are before us. 4. Learned Counsel for appellant submits that the amount was paid under protest which was not duty payable by them. Therefore, provisio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 4 the tractors manufactured by the appellant became exempt from payment of duty. Therefore, appellant was directed to reverse the Cenvat credit through PLA for input laying in stock, work in progress and contained finished goods. Admittedly, at the time of availment of Cenvat credit the tractors are dutiable. Therefore, they were entitled to take Cenvat credit of inputs and capital goods. In that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X