ORDER
Moheb Ali M., Member (T)
1. In the impugned order the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi confirmed an amount of Cenvat credit of Rs. 61,91,538/- under Section 11A(2) demanded equal amount under Section 11D, imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules and demand interest under Section 11AB.
2. The facts are that the appellant is a manufacturer of CRCA galvanized strips. The appellant took Cenvat credit of duty paid on the CRCA Strips and used the said credit while discharging duty on the galvanised strips. Later it was held that of galvanisation of strips does not amount to manufacture and therefore no duty is liable to be paid on galvanized strips. The Commissioners’ contention is that since the final product is held to be non dutiable, the appellant should not have taken Cenvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs. He then proceeds to demand the amount involved in the credit taken under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act. The said Section stipulates that an assessee who collected any amount representing duty of excise shall forthwith pay the amount so collected to the Government.
3. Heard both sides.
4. This Tribunal in the case of Vinayak Industries [2003 (159) E.L.T. 456] held that the issue (identical to the present case) is academic as assessee was not seeking refund of duty and there was no need to reverse the credit of duty. The demand for reversal of credit is not tenable. Demand for duty under Section 11D is equally untenable as the assessee in any case paid duty collected from the buyers to the Government. There is nothing further left to demand from the appellant. The appeal is allowed.