HARI KRISHNA STEEL CORPORATION Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a case, in which, the appellants had reversed the cenvat credit on 19th January, 2002 and the show cause notice was issued on 3rd June, 2002. The learned Advocate brings to my notice in the case of Emmellen Biotech v. CCE Mumbai -VII, which reads as follows: The credit wrongly taken was repaid within eight months before the issue of notice. Even if the appellant has not done so, debiting the wrong credit on its own, and only paid it after notice was issued and adjudicated, but if so within three months of determination of duty, it is still not required to pay the interest. The payment of interest in the present case therefore does not arise.

(2.) THE learned Advocate informs that the case is identical, hence the impugned order has to be set aside with regard to interest demanded thereunder.

(3.) THE learned Joint CDR reiterates the ratio adopted in the order -in -appeal. The order -in -appeal reads as follows: Page 52 As regards the recovery of interest under Section 11AB, appellant has contended that this is not sustainable inasmuchas there is no enjoyment of such amount and same was not utilised and it was laying with the government account and hence, interest cannot be demanded/recovered. However, on going through the Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act 1944, I find that it does not distinguish the fact whether the amount lying with the assessee has been utilized by it or not and therefore, lower adjudicating authority has rightly demanded recovery of interest. Further, the learned Joint CDR reads out sub -para 1 of Rule 57AH, which reads as follows: Where the CENVAT credit has been taken or utilized wrongly, the same along with interest shall be recovered from the manufacturer and the provisions of Sections 11A, 11AA, and 11AB of the Act shall apply mutatis mutandis for effecting such recoveries.