JUDGMENT N. Kumar, J.—This appeal is by the revenue challenging the order passed by the Tribunal [2008 (227) E.L.T. 448 (Tribunal) I which held that the payment of interest is not justified and thus set aside the order passed by the original authority as well as the appellate authority. The assessee M/s. Gokaladas Private Ltd., are the holders of Central Excise registration. They are engaged in the manufacture of readymade garments falling under Chapter 61 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are also availing the benefit of Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. During the course of audit of the records of the assessee for the period April, 2003 to May, 2004 certain short-payment /nonpayment of duty/wrong availment of ineligible credit notes were noticed. On being pointed out by the audit, the assessee paid the said short payment/nonpayment/wrong availment of Cenvat credit along with interest. The interest was paid under protest. After paying the interest they filed an application for refund of the interest amount of Rs. 3,64,576/- on the ground that they have paid duty liability voluntarily before issue of show cause notice and hence they are not liable pay interest on the said duty. The assessee was not eligible for refund of the interest amount. Therefore a show cause notice dated 17-11-2005 was issued to the assessee directing him to show cause as to why the refund claim of interest should not be rejected. The assessee filed his reply. The assessee pointed out that the payment of interest would arise in cases where the duty is paid before issue of show cause notice. They have already reversed the Cenvat credit paid before issuing of show cause notice. Therefore they were not liable to pay interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act. However, the assessing authority did not accept their contention and therefore the refund claim was rejected. Aggrieved by the same the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Appeals. The appellate authority found that the assessee reserved their wrongly availed Cenvat credit including the duty paid/short payment made/wrong availment of ineligible credit before issue of show cause notice along with interest. Under Section 11-AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the payment of interest is very much in conformity with the provisions of law. The appellate authority found that the assessee reserved their wrongly availed Cenvat credit including the duty paid/short payment made/wrong availment of ineligible credit before issue of show cause notice along with interest. Under Section 11-AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the payment of interest is very much in conformity with the provisions of law. Therefore they upheld the order of the assessing authority and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the asessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that even though the assessee had taken the credit they never utilized the same. When the irregularity was pointed out the credit was reversed without demur. Relying on the Judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Page Apparels Private Ltd. vs. C.C.E., 2007 (208) E.L.T. 108 (Tribunal-Bangalore) : 2008 (11) S.T.R. 95 (Tribunal) it held that the interest would not be payable when there is no utilization of Modvat credit. It also relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of C.C.E. vs. Narayan Polyplast, 2005 (179) E.L.T. 20 (S.C.) where it was held that once the credit was reversed it amounted to not taking the credit at all. Thereafter it has proceeded to hold that though the assessee had taken credit he has not utilized it to discharge any duty or liability. In that case, the entries remain merely as entries without any effect on the Government's revenue. The credit was reversed immediately after audit pointed out the lapse and therefore it held that the payment of interest is not justifiable. Thus, it set aside the order passed by the authority and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue is in appeal. 2. This appeal was admitted on 13-3-2009 to consider the following substantial question of law : (i) Whether the Tribunal was correct in interpreting the law as discussed in the Tribunal Court decision in the case of Page Apparels Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., 2007 (208) E.L.T. 108 (Tribunal-Bang.) : 2008 (11) S.T.R. 95 (Tribunal) since issue is covered by the Judgment of M/s. Page Apparels Pvt. Ltd.? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the order-in-Appeal No. 111/2006 Central Excise dated 27-10-2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Bangalore and holding that the demand of interest is not justified? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the order-in-Appeal No. 111/2006 Central Excise dated 27-10-2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Bangalore and holding that the demand of interest is not justified? This Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. C.C.T. in CEA No. 96/2010, decided on 5-4-2011 [2012 (26) S.T.R. 204 (Kar.)] has held that though the credit of duty is entered in the account books unless the said credit is duly taken to discharge the duty payable the liability to pay interest for the delayed payment would not arise. In the case of wrong availment before the said duty is taken, if the entry is reversed it amounts to not taking the credit at all and therefore when admittedly no duty is payable, the question of payment of interest on the delayed payment of duty would not arise. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Tribunal is strictly in accordance with law and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law in this appeal are answered in fovour of the assessee and against the revenue.