TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tended period is not invocable, no demand for interest, imposition of penalty be sustained - In the case in hand, the law laid down by the Honble High Court of Karnataka and the Division Bench of the Tribunal would squarely apply as the appellant could not have been saddled with duty. The appellant has himself voluntarily paid the duty before the authority and also reversed the credit on being pointed out. This is a fit case wherein interest liability fastened on the appellant and the equivalent amount of penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 needs to be set-aside - The impugned order to the extent it challenges demand of the interest and imposition of penalty is liable to be set-aside and is set aside - The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 (The Act for short). 4. Aggrieved by such an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, appellants preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority after considering the submissions made in the appeal memorandum, also during the personal hearing and the written submission upheld the impugned Order in Original, hence this appeal. 5. The ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the appellant had availed Cenvat Credit during the period from April, 2007 to June, 2009 which is evident from the show cause notice. It is his submission that the said cenvat credit which was availed by the assessee was in respect of invoices received from Export Oriented Unit and due to misunderst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit and also imposition of penalty. I find that there is no dispute that the appellant had availed excess cenvat credit on the invoice raised by an export oriented unit. I also find that the appellant had reversed the cenvat credit on 04/09/2009 when second audit checking of the documents took place and before the issuance of the Show cause notice. I also find from the records that the first audit of the appellant took place on 17th to 19th August, 2009 and the audit party did not notice any thing wrong in availment of cenvat credit. On subsequent perusal of records and verification of the documents maintained by the appellants, it was noticed that the appellant availed excess credit of Rs.1,96,329/-. Show cause notice in this case was is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest, imposition of penalty be sustained. In the case in hand, the law laid down by the Honble High Court of Karnataka and the Division Bench of the Tribunal would squarely apply as the appellant could not have been saddled with duty. The appellant has himself voluntarily paid the duty before the authority and also reversed the credit on being pointed out. 9. I find that this is a fit case wherein interest liability fastened on the appellant and the equivalent amount of penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 needs to be set-aside. Accordingly in view of the foregoing reasons, I find that the impugned order to the extent it challenges demand of the interest and imposition of penalty is liable to be set-aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
