TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OURT] and Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Pearl Insulation Ltd. [2012 (11) TMI 912 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] followed - Inasmuch as issue stands decided, by Karnataka High Court by interpreting Supreme Court decision in Ind-Swift [2011 (2) TMI 6 - Supreme Court] and the facts are not in dispute - Decided against Revenue. - E/2726/2010-SM(BR) - 55193/2013(PB) - Dated:- 10-1-2013 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. Shri B.B. Sharma, AR, for the Appellant. Shri J.M. Sharma, Consultant and Ms. Pooja Agarwal, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER The brief facts of the case, as detailed in the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) are as under :- (a) The Appellants is engaged in manufacture of Ferro Alloys. They are also a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder :- I have carefully gone through the records of the case and arguments of the Appellants, it is alleged that the appellants had availed credit of input services in respect of the services used in the another unit. The appellants have not disputed this fact. Since the services were not used in the unit where credit was availed, the same was not admissible to the appellants when this was pointed out, realizing the legal position, the appellants have reversed the same. Argument of the appellants is that since the credit taken was not utilized and reversed when pointed out interest is not payable and since there was no intention to evade duty penalty is also not imposable. In this context I find Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with Ms. Pooja Agarwal learned Advocate for the respondent. 5. There is no dispute about the reversal of the Cenvat credit. 6. Revenue seeks to impose penalty on the respondent and confirm interest in respect of the Cenvat credit wrongly availed by the respondent. 7. Learned AR appearing for the Revenue submits that the decision of the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Swift Laboratories Ltd., relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals), stand reversed by the Hon ble Supreme Court reported as Union of India v. Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd. - 2011 (265) E.L.T. 3 (Supreme Court) = 2012 (25) S.T.R. 184 (S.C.). As such he submits that inasmuch as the issue stands decided by the Hon ble High Court decision in the above referr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
