TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1036X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was directed by the Superintendent to reverse the credit entry on 23-5-2012 which was actually reversed on 8-6-2012 - Held that:- Following decision of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd [2011 (4) TMI 969 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - where the credit availed remained as paper entry only and was not utilized at all, no interest liability would arise against the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lance accumulated Central Excise credit to their other factory located in Sector 9. Such permission was initially granted by their Asstt. Commissioner vide letter dated 15-3-2012. In terms of said permission, the appellant took a credit entry on 16-3-2012. 3. Subsequently, the permission granted was withdrawn by the Asstt. Commissioner on 3-4-2012. Accordingly, the appellants Range Superintend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as such, no interest was to be demanded. For the above proposition, the Superintendent relied upon the Hon ble Karnataka High Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (26) S.T.R. 204 (Kar) = 2012 (279) E.L.T. 209 (Kar.)]. 5. The said order of the Superintendent was appealed against by the Revenue before Commissioner (Appeals) who rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly reversed on 8-6-2012. During the period 16-3-2012 to 8-6-2012, undisputedly credit availed by the appellant in terms of permission granted by the Assistant Commissioner was lying as an entry only and was not put to any use. An identical situation was the subject matter of Hon ble Karnataka High Court decision in the case of Bill Forge referred (supra). The said decision of Hon ble Karnataka Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee. The said decision in the case of Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. was also followed by Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Pearl Insulation Ltd. [2012 (281) E.L.T. 192 (Kar.) = 2012 (27) S.T.R. 337 (Kar.)]. The Tribunal has also been consistently following the said decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court. 7. As such, I am of the view that no interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
