| Discussions Forum | ||||||||||||||
Home  Forum Central Excise This
|
||||||||||||||
| A Public Forum. Anyone can participate to share knowledge. |
||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| We acknowledge the contributions of Experts/ Authors. | ||||||||||||||
Submit new Issue / Query |
||||||||||||||
Intrest not payable when not utilized notification no, Central Excise |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Intrest not payable when not utilized notification no |
||||||||||||||
Please provide the notification no which was state that interest not payable when not utilized . Posts / Replies Showing Replies 1 to 3 of 3 Records Page: 1
Central Excise Non-Tariff Notification No.18/2012-C.E.(N.T.) Dated 17.03.2012 amending the definition of rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004 2004, w.e.f. 17.03.2012.
If period involved is prior to 1.4.12 : Matter is in controversy for the period prior to this amendment , nullifying Supreme Court decision in Ind-Swift case (favouring Revenue). Luckily that decision is now not valid as the Cenvat Credit Rule 14 has been amended (rare thing that some thing is done in favour of assessee and the word 'or' has been replaced by 'and'. Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, as amended w.e.f. 1-4-2012 uses words ‘availed and utilised’. Hence, if Cenvat credit was wrongly taken but not utilised for payment of excise duty or service tax, interest is not payable.
There have been some other decisions of Tribunals lately which have sought to distinguish Ind-Swift. For instance, 2013 (7) TMI 567 - CESTAT NEW DELHI [Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad Versus M/s. Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. and M/s. Jaypee Cement Blending Unit] and Contest the case if for prior period, if the amount of demand is substantial. Some case-laws (mostly against you) can be referred to understand the issue in detail
Another decision has been reported in TMI in favour of assessee today on the issue. Case of Bill Forge (Karnataka High Court) = [2011 (4) TMI 969 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has been relied upon, while distinguishing Supreme Court order in Ind-Swift case (2011 (2) TMI 6 - Supreme Court). M/s. Gary Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana. = (2013 (11) TMI 780 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) Page: 1 Old Query - New Comments are closed. |
||||||||||||||
