JUDGMENT RAJES KUMAR, J.--This is an appeal under section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") arising from the order of the Tribunal dated 4.8.2009 in Central Excise Appeal No.E/2551 of 2007 raising following questions : (A)" Whether, the Tribunal has committed a manifest error of law to direct the Original Authority "to wrify as to whether credit was utilized and if not utilized the credit during the material period, no interest will be demanded", whereas the liability to pay interest under section 11-AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is automatic till the period the amount is not paid and it does not depend on non-utilization of amount kept/credit taken by manufacturer? (B) Whether the facts and circumstances of the case reduction in penalty under Rule 15 ot the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.10,000/- is legally permissible where the duty involved and confirmed was Rs.9,31,360/- and the aforesaid Rules provides for levy of penalty not exceeding the duty or ten thousand rupees which ever is greater"? 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent-manufacturer (hereinafter referred to as "Assessee") was engaged in printing on steel sheets. Printed sheets were classifiable under sub-heading 7210.30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. By notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002, as amended by notification No.16/2004-CE dated 28.2.2004, the duty was reduced from 16% instead of 8% advalorem. The Assessee, by mistake, paid the duty @ 16% instead of 8% advalorem during the period 28.2.2004 to 18.3.2004. In this way, there was an excess payment of Rs. 9,31,360/-. The Assessee supplied the printed sheets to their sister unit, who initially availed credit of the excess duty paid. Subsequently, the sister unit reversed the excess duty paid by the Assessee on 31.1.2005 in their Cenvat account at the instance of their jurisdictional officer. The Assessee took suo moto credit of Rs. 9,31,360/- paid in excess in their Cenvat account, on 25.5.2005. A show cause notice dated 13.2.2006 was issued on the ground that Cenvat credit of Rs. 9,31,360/- has been wrongly taken and arcordingly proposed to demand the Cenvat credit of Rs. 9,31,360/- along with interest and penalty. The adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand of entire amount of duty along with interest and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lac. A show cause notice dated 13.2.2006 was issued on the ground that Cenvat credit of Rs. 9,31,360/- has been wrongly taken and arcordingly proposed to demand the Cenvat credit of Rs. 9,31,360/- along with interest and penalty. The adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand of entire amount of duty along with interest and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lac. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Assessee filed second appeal before the Tribunal along with stay application. It appears that in terms of the order of the Tribunal on the stay application, the Assessee has reversed the entire credit. Before the Tribunal, the Assessee contended that the entire credit has been reversed before its utilization and the said amount is still lying in their Cenvat account and a separate application was moved for the refund of the amount which has been paid in excess. The Tribunal by the impugned order has upheld the demand of duty which has been reversed by the Assessee in their Cenvat account and reduced the amuunt of penalty to Rs.10,000/-. Regarding the demand of interest, the Tribunal directed the Original Authority to verify as to whether credit was utilized and if it has not been utilized during the material period, no interest will be demanded. 4. Heard Sri S.P. Kesarwani, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has wrongly taken Modvat Credit suo moto and, therefore, the appellant is liable for interest under Section 11-AB of the Act. He submitted that the liability of interest is automatic and does not depend on non-utilization of amount. In support of the contention, he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune v. M/s. SKF India Ltd.1 which has been followed in the case of Commissioner of Celltral Excise v. M/s. Internatiollal Auto Limited2. He further submitted that reduction of penalty to Rs.10,000/- is also not justified. 1. JT 2009 (9) SC 438. 2. JT 2010 (1) SC 294. 6. We have gone through the impugned order and considered the submissions made by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 7. Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 reads as follows: Rule 14. He further submitted that reduction of penalty to Rs.10,000/- is also not justified. 1. JT 2009 (9) SC 438. 2. JT 2010 (1) SC 294. 6. We have gone through the impugned order and considered the submissions made by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 7. Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 reads as follows: Rule 14. Recovery of CENVAT credit wrongly taken or erroneously refrmded.--Where the CENVAT credit has been taken or utilized wrongly or has been erroneously refunded, the same along with interest shall be recovered from the manufacturer or the provider of the output service and the provisions of sections 11-A and 11-AB of the Excise Act or sections 73 and 75 of the Finance Act, shall apply mutatis mutandis for effecting such recoveries. Section 11-AB of the Act reads as follows: Section 11-AB. Interest on delayed payment of duty.--(1) "Where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or shortpaid or erroneously refunded, the person who is liable to pay duty as determined under sub-section (2), or has paid the duty under sub-section (2-B), of section 11-A, shall, in addition to the duty, be liable to pay interest at such rate not below ten percent, and not exceeding thirty-six per cent per annum, as is for the time being fixed by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, from the first date of the month succeeding the month in which the duty ought to have been paid under this Act, or from the date of such erroneous refund, as the case may be, but for the provisions contained in sub-section (2), or sub-section (2-B), of section 11-A till the date of payment of such duty : Provided that in such cases where the duty becomes payable consequent to issue of an order, instruction or direction by the Board under section 37-B, and such amount of duty payable is voluntarily paid in full, without reserving any right to appeal against such payment at any subsequent stage, within forty-five days from the date of issue of such order, instruction or direction as the case may be, no interest shall be payable and in other cases the interest shall be payable on the whole of the amount, including the amount already paid. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to cases where the duty had become payable or ought to have been paid before the date on which the Finance Bill, 2001 receives the assent of the President. Explanation 1.--Where the duty determined to be payable is reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal or, as the case may be, the Court, the interest shall be payable on such reduced amount of duty. Explanation 2.--Where the duty determined to be payable is increased or further increased by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal or, as the case may be, the Court, the interest shall be payable on such increased or further increased amount of duty." 8. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the CENVAT Rules, 2004 provides that a manufacturer or producer of final produds shall be allowed to take credit of the duty of excise paid on any input or capital goods received in the factory of manufacturer of final products. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 provides that the CENVAT credit may be utilized for payment of any duty of excise of any final product. The Central Excise Duty is the levy on production but is payable at the time of clearance of the manufactured goods. Under the provisions of the Act it is open to the manufacturer to pay the duty through Personnel Ledger Account (P.L.A. in short) or to pay the duty through Cenvat account by debit entry. If any amount is credited in a Cenvat account either by way of Cenvat credit or otherwise which is not admissible and if such amount is utilized for the purposes of the payment of the Central Excise Duty only in that situation it can be said that the duty has not been properly paid and the consequences of the non-payment or duty will follow but if any amount wrongly credited in the Cenvat account is not utilized in making the payment of the excise duty on the final products, it leads to no consequence. In this circumstances, neither assessee gets any advantage nor revenue would suffer any loss and it does not amount to improper payment of duty or non-payment of duty or late payment of duty, on account of wrong availment of credit. 9. In this circumstances, neither assessee gets any advantage nor revenue would suffer any loss and it does not amount to improper payment of duty or non-payment of duty or late payment of duty, on account of wrong availment of credit. 9. It is undisputed fact that the Assessee was entitled for the Cenvat Credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules. It is also not disputed that during the period 28.2.2004 to 18.3.2004 the Assessee had paid Central Excise Duty in excess of Rs.9,31,360/-. The purchasers have reversed the Cenvat Credit in their Cenvat account of Rs.9,31,360/-, therefore, the Assessee was entitled for the refund of excess amount paid in accordance to the provisions of the Act. Instead of claiming refund separately, the Assessee has taken Cenvat Credit of the said amount in the Cenvat account. Such amount credited in the Cenvat account was available for the payment of duty but the same was not utilized for payment of duty and subsequently, the Assessee has reversed the Cenvat Credit entry in the Cenvat account. The Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Cmtral Excise, Mumbai-I v. Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Company Limited1, has held that where before the utilization of the credit amount if the entry is reversed it amounts to not taking credit. Once the credit is reversed before its utilization in the Cenvat account it does not amount to taking of credit. Thus, the provisions of Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules and Section 11-AB of the Act are not attracted and neither the penalty nor the interest is chargeable. The Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III v. Maruti Udyog Limited2, has held that the Assessee is not liable to pay interest as the credit was only taken as an entry in the Modvat record and was not in fact utilized. Against the above decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. CC3915/2007 filed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III has been rejected by the Apex Court on 14.5.2007. The decisions cited by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel are distinguishable and do not apply to the facts of the present case. Against the above decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. CC3915/2007 filed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III has been rejected by the Apex Court on 14.5.2007. The decisions cited by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel are distinguishable and do not apply to the facts of the present case. In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune v. M/s. S.K.F. India Ltd. (supra) it has been held that on revision of prices retrospectively invoices were issued and differential duty was paid. It has also been held by the Apex Court that payment of differential duty clearly falls under Section 11-A (2-B) of the Act and hence interest is chargeable under Section 11-AB of the Act. Similar view has been taken in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s. International Auto Limited (supra). 10. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that there is no error in the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed summarily. Appeal Dismissed.