TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y on all these clearances till 21-7-2004 and they were also availing Cenvat credit on the inputs and utilizing the same for payment of duty on the final products. (b) On 22-2-2004, they opted for and started availing the benefit of Notification No. 30/04, dt. 9-7-2004 according to which the goods are fully exempted subject to the condition, - "Provided that nothing contained in this notification shall apply to the goods in respect of which credit of duty on inputs or capital goods has been taken under the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002." (c) The appellant took some time for taking inventory of inputs lying as such, inputs contained in the goods under process and the inputs which have gone into goods ready for dispatch as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid on any input or capital goods, or of service tax paid on input service, the provisions of such other rule or notification shall prevail over the provisions of these rules." 4.3 He also relied on the order of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot v. Ashok Iron Steel Fabricators reported in 2002 (140) E.L.T. 277, wherein it has been held that credit which has been taken validly need not be reversed when subsequently the products are ex empted. 5. The id. DR apart from reiterating the reasonings of the Commissioner (Appeals), draws my attention that there was delay in reversing the credit and in paying the duty involved on excess credit availed by them prior to 2 1-7- 2004 as they we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at this amount they have paid ought to have been paid on 21-7-2004. The delay in payment legally means, the clearances of finished goods using such inputs on which credit without payment of duty was not strictly conforming to the conditions of the Notification No. 30/04. They have made good and fulfilled the conditions of the Notification belatedly. The demand of interest is justified. 6.4 However, the demand of interest should be restricted to the amount paid by them in cash and not in respect of credit which was lying on 21-7-2004 and not adjusted merely because the details had to be worked out. 6.5 The decision of the Larger Bench, relied upon by the id. Advocate, is not relevant to this case as we are dealing with a Notification whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
