2011 (1) TMI 1016

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... th sides.   2. Revenue is in appeal against the Orders-in-Appeal No: 32/2008(M-IV), 77 & 78/2008 (P) dated 18/08/2008 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the adjudicating authority's order-in-original No.9/2007 dated 28/06/2007 confirming the duty demand with interest.   3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent is engaged in the manufacturer of paints fa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dents were not eligible for the CENVAT credit in dispute. The respondents have not only taken the credit but they availed it also. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable in law and the same should be set aside and the adjudicating authority's order be restored.   5. The contention of the respondent is that they did not dispute that they were not eligible for th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se from the date of wrong utilisation of credit in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd. (supra). In the instant case, interest has been calculated from the date of credit taken. Therefore, the quantum of interest has to be calculated from the date of wrong utilisation of the credit.   7. In .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X