9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Heard both sides. 2. The Appellant filed this Appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 28/ST/10/2010, dated 3-9-2010, whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the lower Adjudicating Authority's Order confirming the recovery of interest of Rs. 1,19,083.00. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of writing and printing paper falling under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice for recovery of interest along with the proposal for penalty. The lower Adjudicating Authority confirmed the amount of interest. Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant challenged it before the Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the lower Adjudicating Authority's Order. 4. The contention of the Appellant is that Service Tax was paid to the service provider and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E.L.T. 227 (Tri.-Delhi), and on another decision of this Tribunal in their own case, vide Order No. S-134/KOL/2011, dated 20-5-2011. 5. The contention of the Department is that the Range Officer has written to the Appellant that they had wrongly availed the Cenvat credit before paying Service Tax amount to the service provider, contrary to the provisions of Rule 4(7) of the Cenvat Credit Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms of Rule 4(7) of Cenvat Credit Rules. There is no dispute that the Appellant had retained the amount which was not due to them and for which the Appellant became entitled only at a subsequent date. Therefore, they are liable to pay the interest in terms of the provisions of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. As regards the contention of the Appellant that Tax has not been determined in accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
