Smartchem Technologies Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 346/2006 dated 21/11/2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Visakhapatnam]

For approval and signature: HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes

Smartchem Technologies Ltd. Ponnada Village, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam Dist.  532 408 Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Visakhapatnam-I Central Excise Building Port Area Visakhapatnam  530 035 Andhra Pradesh Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. G. Prabhakara Sastry, Advocate G.R. Kumar And Co.

No.9, Merry Life Apartments, Doctor's Colony, Peda Waltair, Visakhapatnam  530 017 Andhra Pradesh For the Appellant

Mr. Mohd Yusuf, AR For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 13/02/2015 Date of Decision: 13/02/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20326 / 2015

Per: ARCHANA WADHWA A very short issue is involved in the present appeal. The appellants have been denied the cenvat credit of duty amounting to Rs. 13.27 lakhs (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand approximately) on the ground that they should have utilized the credit as available on 15th of a particular month whereas the appellants have utilized the same much before.

2. Learned advocate submits that though they have the evidentiary proof to show that the utilization was in accordance with law only but nevertheless submits that in any case cenvat credit cannot be denied on this ground and at the most the appellant can be held liable to pay interest, for which they are ready to do so.

3. In view of the above statement of the learned advocate I set aside the impugned order as I agree with him that credit cannot be denied on such a technical and procedural ground. The lower authorities would calculate the interest amount and would intimate the appellant accordingly and the appellant should deposit the interest for such excess utilization of the credit before time. For the said purpose the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority. Appeal is disposed of in above manner.

(Order pronounced in open court)

(ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

iss