ORDER
T. Anjaneyulu, Member (J)
1. Heard the learned JDR. The respondents are called absent. The issue involved in these appeals is whether the amount to be paid in respect of inputs cleared as such under Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 should be paid at the time of clearance or on the 5th day of the following month as per Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and whether in case of delayed payment, the interest is to be paid.
2. The Revenue is in appeal aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). These two cases relate to levy of interest demand under Section 11AB of the Act from the date of clearance of inputs or the actual date of payment.
3. The respondents-assessees are herein engaged in the manufacture of P & P Medicines falling under Chapter Heading 3003.10 of the CETA, 1985 and they were availing the facility of Cenvat Credit during the period May, 2003 to April, 2004. They cleared the inputs/capital goods as such after bringing them into their factory in availing the cenvat credit. In respect of such clearance of inputs, duty was paid on goods manufactured and cleared during the respective months in accordance with Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2003 [(sic) 2002]. The assessees were availing the facility of payment of duty on fortnight basis. The adjudicating authority held that on such clearance of inputs, the duty was required to be paid at the time of clearance itself and not monthly basis. Since there was delay in payment of duty, interest is leviable under Section 11AB of the Act.
4. The Commissioner (Appeals) has referred to Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and Notification No. 13/2003-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-2003 which deleted the words “on the date of such removal” from Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 with effect from, 1-3-2003 in his impugned order and observed that no interest can be demanded under Section 11AB of the Act as the period pertains to May, 2003 to April, 2004.I see nothing erroneous or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Mumbai-II. There appears no valid ground in the memorandum of appeal filed by the Revenue which convince to take a different view. I find absolutely no merits in both the appeals filed by the Revenue. Therefore, both the appeals are rejected.
(Pronounced in court)