S.S. Garg ORDER
S.S. Garg, Member (J)
1. The present appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 21.04.2006. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is manufacturer of tyres, tubes, flaps and compounded rubber falling under Chapter 40 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. The appellants were availing the credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods for payment of duty on finished goods under the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules. They have also availing the benefit of DEPB scheme for selected inputs and capital goods under Notification 45/2002 Cus. : MANU/CUST/0011/2002 dated 22.04.2002. During the period in question the appellant imported certain goods under the DEPB scheme by debiting the duty leviable on the goods i.e. the CVD component in the Duty Entitlement Pass Book. Based on the Tribunal's decision in similar cases the appellant believed that they were entitled to take cenvat credit on such inputs but later on based on a judgment delivered by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Essar Steel Ltd. Vs. CCE, Visakhapatnam, the appellants reversed the credit they had already taken. However the appellant declined to pay interest under the applicable Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Thereafter a show-cause notice was issued and the demand of interest on wrongly taken cenvat credit was confirmed and thereafter appeal was filed and the appeal of the appellant was also dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The issue involved in the present case is whether the appellant is liable to pay interest on the cenvat credit which was availed by the appellant but not utilized and reversed subsequently. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant in the present case had never utilized the credit and the same was reversed before utilization. The appellant always had excess cenvat credit in their cenvat account and they have never utilized the credit and therefore they are not liable to pay interest of Rs. 2,83,129/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Nine only) which has been confirmed by the authorities below.
4. After hearing both sides I find that the issue involved in the present case is no more res integra and is settled in favour of the appellant by a decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE & ST., LTU, Bangalore Vs. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. [MANU/KA/1284/2011 : 2012 (2379) ELT 209 (Kar)] and also in the case of CCE Madurai Vs. Strategic Engineering (P) Ltd. [MANU/TN/3137/2014 : 2014 (310) ELT 509 (Mad)] wherein, following the decision in the case of M/s. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd., it was held that interest and penalty is not imposable where credit wrongly availed has been reversed prior to utilization. Further this issue has been settled by the larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of JK Tyre & Industries Ltd., wherein the larger bench vide its order dated 23.07.2015 has held that the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. (supra) constituted the law governing and operative on the facts and transaction in the current appeal. Since the appellant had merely availed the credit and reversed the same before utilizing the availed credit for remittance of duty, interest liability would not arise. On the other hand, learned A.R. reiterated the findings of the Commissioner.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant filed the judgment of the Hon'ble Tribunal Chennai Bench wherein in the appellant's own case the Chennai Bench of the CESTAT has held that the appellants are not liable to pay interest on the credit already reversed in their own case vide Final Order No. 41008/2015 dated 24.04.2015.<........