Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2010 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (2) TMI 432 - CESTAT, KOLKATACenvat Credit - The Appellants have contended that they have taken the credit, but not utilized the same. The Appellants have also contended that they have reversed the irregular credit. It was also contended that no interest and penalty imposed in the light of the decision of Commissioner v. Maruti Udyog. Revues submission that case relates to rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rule 2002 and not to Rule 14. Held that – both rule provide for recovery of Cenvat Credit taken or utilized wrongly. Commissioner in his findings referred to the impugned credit as ‘taken/utilized’. He has not given clear cut finding in the impugned order whether the credit was only taken or utilized also. Now the appellant have also contented that their credit balance has throughout been more than the amount of credit involved in the case. Therefore the matter requires reconsideration. In these circumstances the impugned order is set and aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner to decide afresh.
|